-**s 


ἱπεύτεος 


ἱ 5825 τὲ Ge RS. 
Σᾶς ε ἘΣ 
tH] 
ere 


» ἥν oe 
a BRS EER SLSR SESS SPS PETES SESE St rig tt Fl SiS Styne rs 
; Pleas etek 
: : ; Gk 
: TE ΣΙ ΕΙΞΕ “δ τε Fe ae ἔτι τὶ 
rc FERS ἘΦ ᾿ =} 


ir 


"ἢ 
UBM 


“4 ΜῊΝ 
aabi roe sary 
Jute eb set Da 

ΣΝ 


͵ we 
δὰ paerpel aie 
ἐν cpu ΜΚῚ 

Ἦν le 


a 


Ms hans hal 

ῬΑΝ } » 

Chl Mun ue 

Pershore tide 

Derr toy tren 

teh te SS RMA D δ᾽ 
et 


ae yyy 
31 peony etate 
᾿ ΄Υ 


J 
Wapae tay 4" 
νον bentwrty Door 


‘ ΜῊ bal 
Pan Ac hat 
ἐδ Τα, 


4 jaye een ee 


Iv hyde 
spi ΤΟΣ 


πα ας 


} 
9 fp 
ΝΣ ee tare sabenetehns ΤῊ 
Wh Shaan 


ts eased 
ane: 


airs ear 

ἌΣ panty pre) 
Crs ohare ΤῊ 
her 


tegeats 


lie 


t yased 
+b sky 


ΠΣ 
bh tgeqer? Υ 
bares ἢ 
pat F yepedad 
fe ατογλλ sO 
@rinpa τ 434 
ΑΗ ΟΝ 


preg Bef ad 
a ree δύνα κόμην; 


pbs. 


ΨΥ 
rer cr 1» 
“ἢ 
Debate | a ot 
a ἤδιήν, oe yee ls y 
ὁμφ τόρ 


ig ΝΣ 
ihe h eu an 


79) 


prey han 
Wally LIAL edd 
eae 
ΟῚ 


ae 


dere 


adel 
eh phen 
ar we | 


Re TT 
eons | 
4a t> 


ἡ»Φ 8 ἡκ ἐν 
74:3. δὲ ϑάφσθον 


wr 
ese 
tear 


1} 
ty 


᾿ in eel 
ΩΝ ye 


Ant 


e 
ΤᾺΣ γος μή γφοι gee 10068" 

ὁ δ 

ΜΉΝ ἊΣ eee asacket 

ape sreal 

ΜΌΝ 


yo he 
ταράφῃ ἢ 
dal Φ Εν ΩΝ 
ὁγοηην νον tte Rol pier ΗΝ 
Pemiededakeses sahodel castles 
xt) 


aerate 


rT ἥ Μ 
Neds "9 Ὅν) εν 
Me ates Ή ΜῊ PPh st varber tenet Fh 9% 


+ 
Hogans bt be 
dangle τ ἢ, 


' ah 
ΡΣ bolle fits 
Soper eee: 
ey batoghots be νοὶ 
tale 
Cet 
prseho dey : 


at $ 
vipa bene toyed τ μ 


. 
pe named unt 


yah 
ἢ. toh te Fee 
we fy 3) 


Ὁ ὑγ)6έ:; 
ΘΥὴ 


hele dvtens 


tian 
gh ee ΤΩΝ 
Saal teats 


nf Ἡ 
phen Hay anet 
2M ele 
“9. 


errr. eats μ᾿ i 
anita 


ἜΗΝ 
se ΚΗ iB 


oh lite 
stiovenpe rrp ave EER 


paryes joe 
νυ ϑέδομε Ἶ 


Cran, ὃ 
ἬΧΟΥ ΑΙ ἈΝ ΠΥ 
dee) ¢ vn » 


a ᾿ 

τ ὅπ} φεῦ «δ beth 

ἀπὲ ον οὐ ὃ od 
one 


LINN Rit τν seid 
pileb ate 

παν Lior} pl 

ΜᾺ + 


‘ 


ps 
ote τῆς 
ei 


paraitt 


Noite (4) oi 


Metkrs 


bik 
tie 


epohey here's 
as) evict ie 


oe 


asi 
ay 
be « ret 

tabteld 


oe 


wee 


oaqdede ἢ rhs bse 


piemat 


rot ie ἦ 
ΣΝ 
* ΩΝ 


ἦν 
ΡΉΜΎΝ 


eve 94 

ol Gel: it stone 
nesses 
Ud φν pornen tr’ 


refs 
naive » 
‘ 


piget eee 
feu cna 


ie 
Ayr ὦ δὲ ἢ 
Μὴν 
ΩΝ 


ΤΉ taupe 
hates & were i ae) 
ΠΑ ΜῊ Aid be aphe® 
ΠΝ 
Φτορενῦν 


ΠΡῸΣ 
μον τὺ 


" 
ote 


rb? 
ΤΡ 
be ἊΣ ts 
δον τὴν 
ἘΣ ΠΗΝ 
δ νυ lie yh 
oe neteh beeerst) 
pat 


ΣΉ 
fis blsiebebey 
γεν". 


siege 


; 
fps oh A 
Pitttetr at Wat tie ᾿ ἀπ μηδ en ebaed sein 


ide gavedreratenes tote beer’ 


ἡνῴδυφι 


yey 
ΜΗ 





ORK ae 
i ἘΠ ΡΟΝ 


OF 
Ken τὰ . 






ὅκα 


» AUG 19 1955 ἡ 
S, SS 
ἔρριραι sew 


BSCa0S 
Be beh Yoo 









ἢ 


yt 


Fina NA 
Α ΠΝ 


i 
i 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticOObroo 





THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


A 


SRI ΤΙΓ ΑΙ AND 'EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


Pen ANNINE EPISPTEES 


BY 


Ἐν A. ES bROOKE a9). 


FELLOW, DEAN AND DIVINITY LECTURER, KING'S COLLEGE 
CAMBRIDGE 


NEW YORK 
CHAKREERS sCRIBNER'"S#SONS 


ΠῸ 2 





PREFACE. 


THE following Commentary is an attempt to apply to the 
Johannine Epistles the method of historical interpretation, 
the only method of exegesis which can claim to be 
scientific. I do not mean by historical interpretation a 
series of ingenious attempts to fit the Epistles into the 
scheme of known facts, dates, and places of early Christian 
history, and to assign them, or their constituent parts, to 
definite persons, places, and decades. A more modest, but 
equally difficult task has been attempted, that of determin- 
ing, in the light of our knowledge of Christian life and 
thought at the end of the First and beginning of the 
Second Century, what the writer seems to have intended 
his readers to understand by the words which he addressed 
to them. When that has been done we may permit 
ourselves to draw conclusions, or hazard conjectures, 
about the author’s theology, or the value of his words for 
later generations. The process is possible, even, if we do 
not know the writer’s name, or the exact place and date 
of his activity. The question of authorship has been 
deliberately avoided. It cannot be profitably discussed 
apart from the wider question of the date and authorship 
of the Fourth Gospel. But we can, I believe, determine 
what it was that the writer wanted to say to definite 
groups of men and women whom he knew, as a spiritual 
father to his own children in the Faith, and whose circum- 
stances he enables us to depict, at least in outline. The 
method attempted carries with it one necessary result, a 


prominence given to matters connected with exhortation 
VII 


ΥΠΙ PREFACE 


and edification which may seem out of proportion ina 
Critical Commentary. But is any other method of 
interpreting the Johannine Epistles scientific, or even 
possible? The writer may or may not have been a 
Theologian. Undoubtedly he was the Pastor of his 
Flock. His chief interest is the cure of souls. He teaches 
and discusses only in order that his readers “ may believe, 
and believing have life.” The meaning of his words can 
only be determined by the sympathetic recollection of this 
obvious fact. Rothe’s Commentary on the First Epistle is 
by far the most illuminating book which has been written 
on the subject, even though in points of detail his 
explanations of particular phrases and passages are often 
unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Jiilicher’s patronising 
appreciation of its value is somewhat amusing, “ Der 
wertvollste, trotz seiner erbaulichen Tendenz.” The 
supreme merit of Rothe’s really remarkable work is that 
his “tendency to edify ” has given him sympathetic insight 
into the meaning and aims of a writer at least as guilty 
as himself of the crime of ‘erbaulichen Tendenz.’ He has 
seen, as Jiilicher has not, that the writer knows to whom 
he is writing, and knows them well. 

The preparation of this Commentary has been the 
παρέργον of several years in such intervals as could be 
spared from Septuagint and College Work. Spasmodic 
efforts, frequently interrupted, lead to uneven results. 
This is the only excuse I have to offer for want of 
completeness and consistency in interpretation, as well 
as for the late date at which the book appears. 

My sincerest thanks are due to Dr. Plummer for the 
kind liberality with which he has interpreted the duties 
of Editor, and the invaluable help which I have in 
consequence received from him, during the period of 
writing as well as that of passing the sheets through the 
Press. 


July 1912. 


CONTENTS. 


------- 

PAGE 
INTRODUCTION TO THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES . . i-xc 
§ 1. THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL : - i 
§ 2. THE AIM 5 - : : . XXvil 
§ 3. DESTINATION . : . . AID 2.2 
§ 4. ANALYSIS : - - . SX 
§ 5. THe ΕΆΠ5Ε TEACHERS. ° ° XXXVIii 
ὃ 6. LiTERARY History . - 5 : 1 
δι ἢ ΗΒ Cc - : : ‘ a Es 
§ 8. COMMENTARIES, ETC. . : : Ixxi 

§ 9. AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECOND AND THIRD 
EPISTLES . : : : = Kad 
§ 10. THE SECOND EPISTLE . : : Fan beak 
§ 11. THE THIRD EPISTLE . : AED 5 6.0.01 

§ 12. HistorIcAL BACKGROUND OF THE TWO 
SHORTER EPISTLES , . 1xxxIVv 
NOTES ON THE First EPISTLE . A - . I 
NOTES ON THE SECOND EPISTLE. : : 100 
NoTEs ON THE THIRD EPISTLE : - Steric 
APPENDIX—THE OLD LaTIN VERSION . : Se το) 
INDICES . . . . - 225-242 
A. GENERAL . Ἴ ᾿ : . og 225 
ZB. AuTHors AND WorKS_ . : : 240 220 
C. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES EXPLAINED eo 
10. GREEK WORDS USED IN THE EPISTLES . 229 


E. WorbDs USED IN GOSPEL BUT NOT IN EPISTLES. 


235 





INTRODUCTION. 


ee ae 


§ 1. THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL. 
(a) Ldentity of Authorship. 


THE discussion of the question whether the First Epistle and 
the Gospel are by the same author may seem to many to be 
almost a waste of time. The view which at first sight must 
seem obvious has always heen maintained by the majority of 
scholars who have investigated the subject. The list includes 
men of widely divergent views, among whom Eichhorn, Credner, 
De Wette, Liicke, Ewald, Keim, and Huther may be mentioned. 
And the patent similarity of style, language, and ways of thinking 
between the two writings might reasonably be regarded as leaving 
no room for doubt. But the views of a minority of competent 
scholars cannot be ignored, especially as the number of those 
who reject the traditional view has been largely increased in 
modern times. Baur’s view, that the explanation of the obvious 
connection between the two writings is to be found in imitation 
rather than in identity of authorship, meets with an increasing 
number of supporters who have a right to be heard. 

The most careful and exhaustive discussion of the question 
is contained in H. Holtzmann’s article in the Jahrbuch fiir 
Protestantische Theologie, 1882, p. 128, which forms the second 
of his series of articles on the “ Problem of the First Epistle of 
S. John in its relation to the Gospel.” He has collected, and 
stated with absolute fuirness, all the evidence on the subject 
which can be derived from the vocabulary, style, and content of 
the Epistle, as compared with the Gospel. In the present section 
the freest use has been made of his article, and most of the lists 
are practically taken from his. 

The list of phrases common to the two writings is very 
striking. An attempt has been made to bring out its true 


a 


il 


THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


[8 1. 


significance by a fuller quotation of the Greek in the passages 


which Holtzmann has collected. 


v. 20. 
iv. 9. 
iv. 6. 
116 
15 
ll. 4 
ΠΥ 
111. Τὸ 
iii. 8 
iii. 10. 
lv. 7. 
ii, 16. 
ii. 29. 
111.09 


EPISTLE. 


ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν. 


τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ 
ἀπέσταλκεν. 


τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. 


. οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 
. ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 
. ἐν 


τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ 


ἔστιν. 


. ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν. 
. ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν. 
. ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν. 


οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. ive 
1-4, 6, ν. 19). 
ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν. 


ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν (οἴ. iv. 5). 


ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. 


. ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται (cf. iv. 


7) ν. 1). 


. πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ 


θεοῦ. 


. ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ 


ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. 


. ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν. 


νῦν τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσμέν (cf. 111. 
τοῦ ν: 2). 


. ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ. 


. ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν. 


τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν. 


θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται. 


xvii. 3. 
i. 14. 

i, 18. 
iii. 16. 
iii. 18. 


xiv. 16f. 


xvi. 13. 
iii. 21. 
Vili. 44. 
Xviil. 37. 
Vili. 44. 
Vili. 47. 


vii. 17. 


viii. 23. 
xv. 19. 


1 15 


Ch. ee. 


. ἔδωκεν 


. τὰ τέκνα TOU 


GOSPEL. 


ἵνα γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν 
μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν. 
ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός. 


μονογενὴς θεός (τ... ὁ 
μονογενὴς υἱός). 
τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδω- 


κεν. 

τοῦ μονογενοῦς 
θεοῦ, 

ἄλλον παράκλητον. .. τὸ 
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (cf. 
xv. 26). 

ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς 
ἀληθείας. 

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 

οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ. 


υἱοῦ τοῦ 


πᾶς ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας. 


ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου 
ἐστέ. 
ὁ ὧν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. 


περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς, πότερον 
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν. 

ὑμεῖς ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου 
ἐστέ (cf. xviii. 36). 

εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἦτε (οἴ. 
xvii. 14, 16). 

ot... ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννή- 
θῆσαν (7.1, qui,... 
natus est). 

ὁ γεγεννημένος 
πνεύματος. 


ἐκ τοῦ 


αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν 
τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι. 
θεοῦ τὰ 
διεσκορπισμένα. 


. οὐ μὴ περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ 


σκοτίᾳ. 


. ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ 


(cf. xi. 9, 10} 


. οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν 


TL. 


. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώ- 


ποτε, 


51] 


THE EPISTLES AND THE 


EPISTLE. 


111, 16. ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν 
αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν. 

1, 8. ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν. 

v. 13. ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε 
αἰώνιον. 

iii. 14. μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανά- 
του εἰς τὴν ζωήν. 

v. 4. νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον (cf. ii. 13). 

ἡ νίκη ἣ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον. 

v. 5. τίς ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον ; 

v. 9. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώ- 
πων λαμβάνομεν. 

ili. 5. ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη ἵνα τὰς 
ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ. 

v. 6. ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος 
(cf. v. 8). 

iii. 9. οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν. 

iv. 20. οὐ (υ.1. πῶς) δύναται ἀγαπᾶν. 

iii, 20. μείξων ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς τῆς 
καρδίας. 

iv. 4. μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν. 

v. 9. ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων 
ἐστιν. 

li. 6. ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν (cf. 
hee eye shila (oh, by Siig, ΤΟΣ 

τ 15. 1.5; 16]: ἢ 

li. 24. ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ ὃ ἀπ᾽ ἀῤχῆς 
ἠκούσατε. 

ii. 28. μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ. 

iv. 12. ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει (cf. vv. 


13, 15, 16). 


GOSPEL ili 
GOSPEL. 
Xiv. 9. ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν 
πατέρα. 
xX. IL. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν 
ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων (cf. 
ΕΣ: 15}: 
x. 17. τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα 
πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν. 
x. 18. ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν. 
xill. 37. τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ 
Ojow (cf. ver. 38, xv. 
13). 
ix. 41. οὐκ ἂν εἴχετε ἁμαρτίαν (cf. 
XV.) 22), 24; ΣΙ. ΕΠ): 
iii. 15. ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ 
ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (cf. 
vv. 16, 36, v. 24, vi. 40, 
47: 54)- 
ν. 39. δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν 
αἰώνιον ἔχειν. 
Vv. 24. μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανά- 
του εἰς τὴν ζωήν. 
Cf. xili. 1. μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τού- 
του πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. 
XVi. 33. ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον. 
ill. 33. ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρ- 
τυρίαν (cf. 111. 11). 
ν. 34. ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου 
τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω. 
i. 29. ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ 
κόσμου. 
xix. 34. ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα ακὶ 
ὕδωρ. 
Vili. 43. οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν. 
ν. 44. πῶς δύνασθε... πιστεῦσαι ; 
xiv. 17. ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν. 
Χ. 29. ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι 
πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν (υ. ὦ, 
6s... μείζων): 
xiv. 28, ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν. 
Vili. 53. μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἡμῶν ABpadp ; 
v. 36. ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω 
τοῦ ᾿Τωάνου. 
Xv. 4. ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε. 
xv. 7. καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν 
μείνῃ. 
vi. 56. ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ 


(οἴ, xiv. 10). 


iv THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 1. 
EPISTLE. GOSPEL. 
iii, 4. πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (cf. Vili. 34. πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 
iii. 8, 9). 
iv. 16. καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπι- vi. 69. καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν 
στεύκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἰ 
Kalin K.T.A. 
ii. 3. ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν Xiv. 15. τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρή- 
(cf. ii. 4, ili. 22, 24, v. 3). σετε. 
ii, 5. 5s δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον. χῖν. 21. ὁ ἔχων τὰς ἐντολάς μου καὶ 
τηρῶν αὐτάς (cf. xv. 10). 
ili. 23. καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμίν. xiv. 31. καθὼς ἐντολὴν ἔδωκέν μοι ὁ 
πατήρ (v.2. ἐνετείλατο). 

ΧΙ. 49. ὁ. . . πατὴρ ἐντολὴν 
δέδωκεν τί εἴπω. 

ΧΗ]. 34. ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν. 

ΧΙ. 57. δεδώκεισαν δὲ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς 
ον + €VTONGS. 
11. 11. οὐκ oldev ποῦ ὑπάγει. iii, 8. οὐκ οἷδας. .. ποῦ ὑπάγει. 

vili. 14. οἶδα. . . ποῦ ὑπάγω (cf. 
ΧΗ, 72): 

xiii. 36. ποῦ ὑπάγεις ; (cf. xiv. 5, 
Xvi. 5). 

v. 6. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθών, i. 33. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων. 
(?Cf. i. 15. οὗτος ἣν ὁ elmwv—v.l, ὃν 
εἶπον.) 
ii, 17. μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Vili. 35. ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 

ΧΙ. 34. ὁ χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα (not confined to 
Johannine books). 

ii. 27. οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις δι- ii. 25. οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τις 
δάσκῃ ὑμᾶς. μαρτυρήσῃ. 

Xvi. 30. οὐ χρείαν ἔχεις ἵνα τίς σε 
ἐρωτᾷ (cf. xiii. 10, οὐκ 
ἔχει χρείαν νίψασθαι). 

iii, 3. ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν. xi, 55. wu ἁγνίσωσιν ἑαυτούς. 
ii, 6. (éxetvos=Christ) καθὼς ἐκεῖ- ii. 21. ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ 
νος περιεπάτησεν (cf. ili. 3, ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. 
ἘΣ 7; 10; ἵν. 17)» iii. 30. ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν. 
iv. 25. ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος. 
ix. 37. ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός 
ἐστιν. 
(Ὁ) xix. 35. καὶ ἐκεῖνος οἷδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ 
λέγει. 


With regard to the use of ἐκεῖνος of Christ, Holtzmann quotes 
Jn. i. 8, which is obviously a mistake. The last passage from 
the Gospel, not quoted by Holtzmann, is the only exact parallel, 
if it is to be interpreted in this sense, to the usage of the Epistle. 
In all the other instances there is some sort of antecedent which 
determines the meaning of ἐκεῖνος. But, at any rate, it is possible 
to see in the Gospel, if it is earlier than the Epistle, a growing 
tendency to use ἐκεῖνος of Christ, almost as a proper name, a use 
which has become fixed in the Epistle. 

The attempt has been made to show how each phrase is used 


§1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL Vv 


in the Gospel and the Epistle. The connection is obvious. In 
explaining it the choice has to be made between an imitator 
and a writer repeating, of without significant variations, his 
common phrases and methods of expression. The usage of 
these phrases seems on the whole to support the latter hypo- 
thesis. But the question can only be determined after con- 
sidering the other evidence. 

It will be noticed that in the phrases quoted above the 
similarity is not confined to actual phrases used, but extends to 
common types, in which the same outline is variously filled up. 
Other, and perhaps clearer, instances of this have been noticed. 
Compare 1 Jn. v. ro with Jn. iii. 18 (the upper line gives the 
words of the Epistle, the lower of the Gospel) 6 μὴ πιστεύων 


ῷ θεῷ ψεύστην πεποίηκεν αὐτό ὺ 7 Β 
τῷ θεῷ ἣν κεν αὐτόν « οὐ τὴν μαρ 


’ὔ 
᾿ \ πεπίστευκεν εἰς 
ἤδη κέκριται ὴ 
, ἃ ΄ ε Ν \ A > A 
Tupiav ἣν μεμαρτύρηκεν ὃ θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς τοῦ θεοῦ 


: . _ (9 Cw) ATs » ᾿ς κ πατέρα 
with Jn. i. 1, ie ἣν πρὸς TOV pA 


τοῦ διαβόλου : ἐ as 
Ξ Ὁ ἜΤ TV 5 ΜΠ Me tit 21’ 
του πατρὸς UPOV 


sor © Jn. i 2 
3 I Jn. i. 8 with 


Jn. vill. 41, τὰ ἔργα 


A , a na 
αὑτοὶ ἐκ Τοῦ κόσμου εἰσίν. διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ Τοῦ κόσμου 
“Ὁ nw ~ nw “ rd ἴω nw 
ὃ ὧν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τῆς γῆς ἐστίν καὶ τῆς γῆς 
λαλοῦσιν 


Mange 21 Jn. iv. 13 with Jn. vi. 56, ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐτὸς 


ἐν ἡμῖν, ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ: I Jn. v. 4 with Jn. iii. 6, τὸ 
θεοῦ 


’,ὕ > an 
εἐγεννημένον EK TOU 
US dais πνεύματος 


; I Jn. iil. 15 with Jn. ν. 38, οὐκ ἔχει 
ζ x 27 3 7 A te Ν λό 9 A > »” 3 ΓΙ 
WYV ALWVYLOV EV αὐτῷ μένουσαν, TOV oyov αὐτου OUK EXETE EV υμιν 
οἴδατε 


Ἶ ἐς an 
ένοντα ; τ Jn. il. 21 with Jn. vill. 22 ; 
“ »1]} J 32, γνώσεσθε 


τὴν ἀλήθειαν. It 
would be easy to make the list a long one. But these examples 
serve as illustrations. Again, the usage suggests a writer who 
varies his own phrases, rather than a mere copyist. If it is a 
question of copying, there has at least been intelligent use and 
not slavish imitation. 
The following points of similarity of style have often been 
noticed : 
(1) The infrequent use of the relative. The thought is 
carried on by means of 
(a) ob... ἀλλά This use is very frequent. Cf. Jn. 
18. Ὁ; πὸ} M2. τῷ, 21: 


vi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 1 


(4) Disconnected sentences. Cf. τ Jn. i 8 (εν 
εἴπωμεν), 9 (ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν), 10 (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν) ; 
Jn. ii. 18, ὃ πιστεύων... ὃ μὴ πιστεύων. 
Frequent in Gospel and Epistle. 

(c) Positive and negative expression of a thought. 
Cf. 1 Jn. i. 5,0 θεὸς φῶς ἐστὶν καὶ σκοτία οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἐν αὐτῳ οὐδεμία : Jn. 1. 3, πάντα dv αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο 
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. 

(2) The emphasizing of a thought by introducing it with a 
demonstrative, ἐν τούτῳ, αὕτη, etc., followed by an 
explanatory clause introduced by ἵνα, ἐάν, or ὅτι, OF 
by a clause added in apposition. 


EPISTLE, GOSPEL. 


v. 4. αὕτη ἐστὶν  vikn... ἣ 
πίστις ἡμῶν. 
iii, 11. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία... xv. 12. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολή... ἵνα 
ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν. ἀγαπᾶτε. 
vi. 29. τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἔργον . . - 
ἵνα πιστεύητε. 


v. 9. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία. . - iil, 19. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ κρίσις ὅτι τὸ 
ὅτι μεμαρτύρηκεν. φῶς ἐλήλυθεν κ.τ.λ. 

iv. 9. ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη ix. 30. ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τὸ θαυμαστόν 
...» Om... amwéoTaNKer. ἐστιν ὅτι ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. 

ii. 3. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν... ἐὰν xiii. 35. ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται. . . 
. . . τηρῶμεν. ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε. 

ii. 6. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν . - . ὃ iv. 37. ἐν τούτῳ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀλη- 
λέγων. . . ὀφείλει, θινὸς . . . ἐγὼ ἀπέστειλα 

K.T.A. 


iil. 24. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν. .. EK 
τοῦ πνεύματος. 

iv. 17. ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται. . . ἵνα xv. 8. ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη. . . ἵνα 
παρρησίαν ἔχωμεν. καρπὸν φέρητε. 

ν. 2. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν .. - 
ὅταν. . . ἀγαπῶμεν. 


iii. I, διὰ τοῦτο οὐ γινώσκει. .. v. 16. διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον . . . ὅτι 
ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω. ἐποίει. 

iii. 8. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη. .. Wa xviii. 37. εἰς τοῦτο yeyévynuat... 
λύσῃ. ἵνα μαρτυρήσω. 


In most of these instances the reference of ἐν 
τούτῳ, etc., to what follows is undoubted, though some 
of them are often, if not usually, interpreted otherwise. 
Again, the impression left by studying them is not that 
of slavish copying. 

(3) Several other small points may also be noticed: 

The use Of πᾶς ὃ with a participle : cf. 1 Jn. iii. 4, was 
ὁ ποιῶν : Jn. ili, 16, πᾶς 6 πιστεύων. Frequent in both 
writings. 

may (τὸ) with the participle, where πάντες might have 
been used. 


51] 


THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL Vii 


Cf. 1 Jn. v. 4, πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ νικᾷ: Jn. 
Vi. 37, πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι. . . πρός με ἥξει. 

The repetition of emphatic words, especially κόσμος, 
θεός, πνεῦμα. 

The frequent use of kai... δὲ: cf. 1 Jn. i. 3, καὶ ἡ 
κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα : Jn. Vi. 51, καὶ ὃ ἀρτὸς δέ. 

The elliptic use of ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα: cf. r Jn. ii. 19, GAN ἵνα 
φανερωθῶσιν 6 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ila Fas 1x.) 3: 
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ : τὰ ἕργα τοῦ θεοῦ: Jn. i. 8, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 
μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. 

The use of καθὼς... καί: cf. τ Jn. ii. 18, καθὼς ἠκού- 
gate... καὶ viv... γεγόνασιν: Jn. xiii. 15, ἵνα 
καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα... καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε. 

The elliptic use of οὐ καθώς : cf. τ Jn. lil. 11, 12, ἀγαπῶ- 
μεν ἀλλήλους" od καθὼς Καὶν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν : Jn. 
vi. 58, οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ἄρτος ὃ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ 
καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον. 

Some of these are worth noticing in view of the 
assertion that the similarities of style and expression 
are mostly in the case of obvious points, which are 
easily imitated. 


(4) Attention must also be drawn to the limited vocabulary 


of both writings, and the very small number of ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενα (1.6. words not found elsewhere in the New 
Testament) which they contain in common. Of 
words common to both writings but not found else- 
where in the New Testament we have only ἀνθρωπό- 
κτονος and παράκλητος. The First Epistle gives us 
four ἅπαξ λεγόμενα (ἀγγελία, ἱλασμός, νίκη, χρίσμα). 
If the three Epistles are taken together the list is 
increased by the following words, ἀντίχριστος, ἐπιδέ- 
χομαι, κυρία, φιλοπρωτεύω, φλυαρέω, χάρτης. The 
number in the Gospel is far larger, and does not offer 
any striking contrast to the other Books of the N.T. 
But its longer list, as compared with the Epistles, is 
adequately explained by the character of the words 
which it contains. 

The importance of N.T. ἅπαξ λεγόμενα has naturally 
decreased in consequence of the discoveries of Papyri 
in the last quarter of a century, which have taught us 
the danger of treating N.T. Greek as an isolated 
phenomenon, even if the actual words in question are 
not among those of which our knowledge has been 
substantially increased by better acquaintance with 
vulgar Greek. It may also be doubted whether the 
author’s vocabulary is really so limited as the perusal 


viii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 1. 


of his writings at first suggests. He can say most 
of what he has to say by the careful use of a few 
words, and prefers to vary his forms of expression 
rather than his vocabulary. He has no love for 
synonyms which have no difference in meaning. He 
does not care to show his command of language by 
the use of many σημαίνοντα to express the same 
σημαινόμενον. He is altogether free from the 
artificialities of the later literary κοινή. He does not, 
however seem to be at loss for a word to express his 
meaning. But however this may be, the limited 
range of normal vocabulary is a feature common to 
both writings. 
The similarity is not confined to style and vocabulary, 
extends to ideas, both as regards doctrine and ethics. 
(1) The general ideas which form the basis of the Johannine 
teaching are common to both. 
The incarnation of the Son of God: 
1 Jn. iv. 2. ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, 
Jn. i. 14. ὃ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. 
The life which has its source in Him: 
I Jn. v. 11. αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ vid αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. 
Jn. i. 4. (ὃ γέγονεν) ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. 
Vi. 35. ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (cf. ver. 48). 
vi. 33. ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ. 
And which is identified with Him: 


= a > Ὁ Εις}. Ὁ) a A A / “ἢ 
I Jn. 1. 1, 2. δ᾽ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς . «- περὶ τοῦ AOyou THs 
ζωῆς. .. καὶ ἣ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη. 
9 Ν a ea δ Ν Ww 9 
Jn. v. 26. οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν 
ἑαυτῷ. 


Xi. 25. ἐγώ εἰμι - . ἢ ζῴη: 

(In 1 Jn. ν. 20, οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς 
καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος probably refers to the Father, 
the God who has been made known by Jesus 
Christ; cf. Jn. v. 26a.) 

Abiding in God: being in Christ, the means of abiding 
in God: 
I Jn. ii. 24. ἐν τῷ vid καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ μενεῖτε. 
ili. 6. πᾶς 6 ἐν αὐτῷ μένων. 
Jn. vi. 56. ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. 
XV. 4-7. (6 μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ). 
I Jn. v. 20. ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. 
Jn. xiv. 20. ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί μου καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοὶ 
κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. 
XVii. 21. ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν dow. 


§1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL ix 


God’s word abiding in us: 
I Jn. 11. 14. ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει. 
ii. 24. ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω. 
Jn. v. 38. τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα. 
God’s love proved by the sending of His Son: 
1 Jn. iv. 9. ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν 
ἡμῖν ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν. 
Jn. iii. 16. οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὃ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν 
υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν. 
The command to love the brethren, which is the result 
of this : 
I Jn. ili. 23. καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἔδωκεν 
ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν (cf. 111. 11, 16, 18). 
Jn. xiii. 34. ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα 
ὑμᾶς (cf. xv. 12, 17). 
Believers the children of God: 
I Jn.v. 1. πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων... ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. 
Jn. i. 12, 13. ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ 
γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 
The great stress laid on “ witness” : 
I Jn. v. 6. τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν (cf. vv. 9-11). 
Jn. v. 36, 37. ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ 
᾿Ιωάνου κιτιλ. Cf. vill. 17 f. 
(a) Certain pairs of opposites common to both writings: Light 
and Darkness, Life and Death, Love and Hate, 
Truth and Falsehood, The Father and the World, 
To be of the World, To be not of the World, God 
and the Devil, The children of God and the 
children of the Devil, To know and not to know 
God, To have seen and not to have seen Him, To 
have life and not to have life. 

It would be very easy to extend largely those lists of 
similarities between the two writings. Many more are noticed 
in the Commentary. To quote all that exist would involve 
printing practically the whole of the Epistle and a large part 
of the Gospel. Schulze’s statement, quoted by Holtzmann 
(p. 134), can hardly be denied, “In the whole of the first Epistle 
there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel.” 

No one would dispute Holtzmann’s judgment, that these 
similarities are closer than those which connect the Third 
Gospel and the Acts, “whose common authorship is un- 
doubted.” In the Pauline literature the case of Ephesians and 
Colossians is analogous. We ought perhaps to add that of 
(part of) the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. And it must be 
admitted that these analogies raise the question of imitation. 
The question may well be asked whether a writer of such 


Χ THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN ($1. 


undoubted power and originality as the author of the Fourth 
Gospel! would be likely “only to copy himself.” It is quite 
possible that a writer who had steeped himself in the thought of 
the Fourth Gospel might produce the First Epistle. And it is 
by no means impossible that we have a similar case, perhaps the 
work of the same imitator, in the twenty-first chapter of the 
Gospel. 

The answer to the question may prove to be discoverable 
only in the light of the writer’s circumstances. The author of 
the Epistle certainly does not aim at literary effect. The edifica- 
hion of his children in the faith is his sole purpose in writing. 
And he is intensely in earnest. He is convinced that he knows 
what truths will meet their needs. He is fully aware that he has 
nothing new to say. They must learn to use what they already 
possess, even that which they had been taught from the begin- 
ning, by himself or by another. These are circumstances under 
which repetition was almost inevitable, especially in the case of 
a man whose nature led him to ponder deeply over a few ideas 
rather than to produce new thoughts every day. 

There is another point which must be considered in this 
connection. In what sense is the author of the Fourth Gospel 
original? Few would venture to deny the depth of thought and 
spiritual insight of the Fourth Gospel. How far is this due to 
the author’s originality? How much has he learnt from others, 
or from Another? ‘There will probably always be differences of 
opinion as to whether he is most indebted to S. Paul or to the 
Lord Himself. The Fourth Gospel has a large part to play in 
the controversy which rages round the question Jesus or Paul? 
But whether we accept or reject the paradox of Wernle, “It is 
S. Paul who is original, 5. John is not,” as a solution of the 
Johannine problem, we can hardly escape the impression which 
the study of the Fourth Gospel leaves with us, that its author 
meditates and transforms rather than originates. The process 
may have reached a further stage of development in the Epistle. 
We may be nearer to the writers own thoughts, or rather the 
process of assimilation may be more complete, whereas in the 
Gospel we can trace more clearly his debt to another. But such 
a writer as the author of the Gospel might well “repeat himself,” 
especially if he were fully conscious that he had already said or 
taught his readers all that they required to meet the circumstances 
in which they found themselves placed. Ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ 
ἀρχῆς ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω is the burden of his message. His chief 
‘object in writing is to remind them what it was. 

It cannot, therefore, be said that the absence of new matter 

1 If, for present purposes, we may so describe the man who has given it to 
us in its present form. 


§1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL xl 


in the Epistle is zecessarily suspicious. But this view would, of 
course, have to be modified if convincing evidence were forth- 
coming that the resemblance between the two writings is mainly 
confined to obvious points which could be easily caught and 
imitated, while there are real differences in minor points of style 
and expression where conscious imitation would be less easy, 
and where the peculiarities of the imitator would be most likely 
to show themselves. The following points are cited in support 
of such a hypothesis : 

"Exew ἐλπίδα ἐπί τινι. This is said to be “contrary to the 
general usage of the N.T. (Ro. xv. 12 being a quotation from 
the O.T.), and also to that of Jn. v. 45 (ἐλπίζειν εἴς τινα). The 
“usage of the N.T.” is surely rather difficult to decide. As to 
ἔχειν ἐλπίδα we have Ac. xxiv. 15, ἐλπίδα ἔχων eis τὸν θεόν, and the 
passage | in question from the Epistle with ἐπί, As to ἐλπίζειν we 
find εἰς ὅν, Jn. v. 45 ; ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ro. xv. 12 (= Is. ΧΙ. 10); ἐν Χριστῷ, 
τ Co. ΧΥ. Το ; ἐπὶ θεῷ, I Ti. iv. 10, Vi. 173 ἐπὶ [τὸν] θεόν, τιν Ε΄: 
ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι, TEL πὴ: ἐπὶ my... Kapa, α Pot τὴ; 
εἰς θεόν, τ Ῥ. iii. 5. It is unnecessary to illustrate or quote its use 
with the accusative, or ὅτι, or the infinitive, or its use absolutely. 
The evidence is clearly insufficient to establish a N.T. use for or 
against any particular construction. 

We must next consider the use of ἀπό with the verbs ἀκούειν, 
αἰτεῖν, λαμβάνειν (cf. also ἔχειν, 11. 20, iv. 21), as against the 
usual construction with παρά which is found in the Gospel. 
With regard to ἀκούειν the usage is clear, so far as it goes, though 
it may be noticed that ἀκούειν ἀπό occurs only once in the 
Epistle, where it probably has a slightly different shade of mean- 
ing, emphasizing the ultimate rather than the immediate source 
of the hearing, that both constructions, ἀπό and παρά, are found 
in Acts (ix. 13, x. 22), and that Gospel and Epistle share the 
commoner construction, z.e, with a genitive of the person. 
AapBavew occurs twice, αἰτεῖν once in the Epistle, with the 
construction ἀπό τινος. In the Gospel λαμβάνειν παρά is found 
four times, αἰτεῖν παρά once. There is not very much ground 
here for a theory of separate authorship. 

The following differences are also noticed, which for con- 
venience may be tabulated: 


EPISTLE. GOSPEL. 
κοινωνία. The Holy Spirit. 
ἔχειν τὸν υἱόν. Birth from above. 
ἀγάπη τετελειωμένη. 
θεὸς ἀγάπη. ; θεὸς πνεῦμα. 
ἀγάπην ἀγαπᾶν. ἀγάπην διδόναι. 
πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν. ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν. 


ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 


xii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 1. 


So far the list is perhaps more striking for its resemblances than 
its differences. There are, however, undoubtedly many words 
and phrases which are peculiar to each. Some of them remind 
us that the vocabulary of the author or authors is not quite so 
limited as is generally assumed. In any case, can we say that 
the peculiarities are greater than can be naturally explained by 
differences of time, circumstances, and subject ? 

The Index has been arranged so as to give with rough accuracy 
the full facts of vocabulary. It will be sufficient here to notice 
the differences to which Holtzmann has called attention. 

The following words are quoted from the Gospel which are 
absent from the Epistle : δόξα, δοξάζειν, χάρις, πλήρωμα, οὐρανός, 
ἀνιστάνειν, ἀναστῆναι, ἀνάστασις, ἐγείρειν, ot νεκροί, ἄνωθεν, βασιλεία 
τοῦ θεοῦ, τὰ ἐπίγεια (ἐπουράνια), ὑψοῦσθαι, ἀπολλύναι, σώζειν, 
ἐργάζεσθαι (used in the shorter Epp.), σωτηρία, ὃ πέμψας, κρίνειν, 
κρίμα, διακονεῖν, διάκονος, ἐμφανίζειν, εἰρήνη. Of these words some 
are 50 rare, comparatively or absolutely, that their absence in the 
Epistle would be more probable than their presence. There 
are not many which we should even expect to find, though the 
absence of δόξα, ὃ πέμψας, κρίνειν, ἄνωθεν calls for notice. There 
is perhaps not one of which we can say that the author of the 
Gospel must have used it if the Epistle were his. 

The list of phrases is larger. A few facts as to usage, which 
go far to modify the significance of the list, have been noted 
in brackets: τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἃ ἅγιον (once in Gospel, cf. also xx. 22, 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, whereas τὸ πνεῦμα is the common usage in both), 
γεννηθῆναι ἐκ πνεύματος, ἐξ ὕδατος Kal πνεύματος (confined to the 
conversation with Nicodemus, while γεννηθῆναι ἐκ θεοῦ is 
common to both writings), ἀγαπᾶν τὸ φῶς, τὸ σκότος (once in 
Gospel), φαῦλα πράσσειν (fwice), μαρτυρία, of God ( cf. τ Jn. v. 
9, 10), ὃ κύριος, of Christ (szv times, of which three Abe ai Ch kote: 
xill, 14, 16 have not been included), ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ (once, cf. 
Apoc.), ἰδεῖν “ζωήν (once), προσκυνεῖν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ 
(twice, in ch. iv.), τιμᾶν τὸν πατέρα, υἱόν (thrice in one verse, 
besides which only viii. 49, τιμῶ τὸν πατέρα μου, Cf. ΧΙ]. 26, τιμήσει 
αὐτὸν ὃ πατήρ), ποιεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά (once), ἀνάστασις ζωῆς, κρίσεως 
(once each), “μαρτυρεῖν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. (twice, cf. 1 Jn. v. 6, Kai τὸ 
πνεῦμά ἐστι TO μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἣ ἀλήθεια), ἐραυνᾶν τὰς 
γραφάς (once), οὐκ ἀποθνήσκειν (twice, ἢ in ch, xx, but cf. py, od py 
twice or thrice) ἀποθνήσκειν € ἐν TH ἁμαρτίᾳ (¢hrice, in one context), 
ρήματα τοῦ θεοῦ, ζωῆς αἰωνίου (device and once), φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, τῆς 
ζωῆς (thrice and once), εἶναι ἐκ τῶν ἄ ἄνω, κάτω (once each), μένειν ἐν 
τῷ λόγῳ (once, cf. 2 Jn. 9, μ evel ἐν TH Sieve the corresponding 6 6 
λόγος. - . μένει. . . eviscommon to Gospel and Epistle), ὁ λόγος 
χωρεῖ (once), ἐλευθεροῦν ({τυϊ46) ; and ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι (once, in 
same context), θεωρεῖν θάνατον, γεύεσθαι θανάτου (once each), 6 


81. THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL xiii 


ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου (once, τούτου twice), viol Tov φωτός (once), ὃ ὃ υἱὸς 
ἐν τῷ πατρί (9), ὃ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ (once, ὃ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί, ete., 
fairly common), φιλεῖν, μισεῖν τὴν ψυχήν (once each), ἔχειν εἰρήνην 
(once), ἔχειν τὸ φῶς (twice), πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ φῶς (ONCE), ἑτοιμάζειν 
τόπον (fice, in same context), αἰτεῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (Χριστοῦ) 
(jive times, cf. I Jn. v. 14, κατὰ τὸ θέλημα), μονὴν ποιεῖν παρά τινι 
(once), καρπὸν φέρειν (ezght times, of which szx are in xv. 2--8), 
φανεροῦν τὸ ὄνομα (once, the use of φανεροῦν is characteristic of 
both), ἕν εἶναι (four times). If this list is at all complete, or 
representative, it certainly affords very little evidence of the 
presence in the Gospel of characteristic phrases not to be 
found in the Epistle. It consists mostly of phrases which are 
found only once or twice, or which, if they occur more frequently, 
are generally confined to a special context. There are very few 
of them of which we can say that their absence from the Epistle 
is significant. 
It may be worth while to go through in the same way the 
fifty “‘ pecularities” which Holtzmann has noted for the Epistle. 
(1) 6 with the Present Participle. (Found ezg#¢ times in Jn. 
xili.—xvi., but certainly more frequent in the Epistle.) 
(2) ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι, περιπατῶμεν, ὁμολογῶμεν (ἐάν with each 
of these verbs occurs in the Gospel, and the use of ἐάν 
is fairly frequent in both writings ; naturally oppor- 
tunities for the use of the 1st person plural are far 
less in the Gospel than in the Epistle). 
(3) ἔκ τινος γινώσκειν (¢wice). Cf. 1 Jn. 11. 18 (ὅθεν). 
(4) ὑμεῖς followed by a relative sentence, which becomes 
the subject of the main sentence (ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε 
. ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω, ii. 24, Cf. 27). (May we not 
compare Jn. x. 29, 6 πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων 
μεῖζόν ἐστιν ?) 
(5) κοινωνία, with God, Christ, the brethren. (The teaching 
about κοινωνία in the Epistle is surely the natural 
sequel of Jn. xiv.—xvii.) 
(6) ἀγγελία, ἐπαγγελία, τ (It may be noted that 
ἀγγέλλειν 1 is a N.T. ἅπαξ ξ λεγόμενον i in the Gospel.) 
(7) ἑαυτὸν πλανᾶν. (The verb is common to both. ) 
(8) ὁμολογεῖν Tas ἁμαρτίας. (The verb is, of course, common 
to both. Its use with ἁμαρτία is peculiar, in the N.T., 
to the one passage 1 Jn. i. 9; cf. ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, Mt., 
Mk., 
(9) πιστός, a God. (Once. The word is used once in the 
Gospel.) 
(10) ἡ ἀγάπη τετελείωται. (Cf. Jn. XVli. 23, ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειω- 
μένοι εἰς ἕν... καὶ ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθὼς ἐμὲ 


ἠγάπησας.) 


xiv 


THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 1. 


(11) διάνοια (once). 

(12) παράγειν. (More correctly παράγεσθαι. The active 
παράγειν occurs twice in the Gospel, in a different 
sense.) 

(13) ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἀδελφούς. (The phrase of the Gospel, 
ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, quoted as a contrast, is perhaps 
a sufficient parallel.) 

(14) σκάνδαλον, 11. το (cf., however, with the context, ἐν τῇ 
σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ οὐκ οἷδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει: Jn. xi. 9, ἐάν 
τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμερᾷ οὐ προσκόπτει.) 

(15) ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. (CF. 
Jn. xx. 23, ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται 
αὐτοῖς.) 

(16) ψευδοπροφῆται, ἀντίχριστοι. (Cf. Jn. v. 43.) 

(17) ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κόσμον. (Should we compare Jn. xxi. 15, 
ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων At any rate the resemblance 
of the two writings in their use of κόσμος is far more 
striking than the absence of a particular phrase from 
one of them.) 

8) ἀλαζονεία (once). 

(19) Bios (twice). 

) ἀγαπητοί. (Six times; cf. 3 Jn. ἀγαπητέ thrice. The 
doctrine of ἀγάπη contained in the Gospel would 
certainly account for the frequency of this form of 
address in the Epistle.) 

(21) τὸ χρίσμα. (Thrice; cf. Jn. ill. 34, δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα : 
Cf Vil: 20) 

(22) ἀρνεῖσθαι, ὁμολογεῖν, τὸν υἱόν. (Cf., however, Jn. i. 20, 
ὡμολόγησεν Kal οὐκ ἠρνήσατο.) 

(23) ἔχειν τὸν πατέρα, τὸν υἱόν. (Cf., perhaps, Jn. ili. 29, ὃ ἔχων 
τὴν νύμφην.) 

(24) παρρησία πρὸς τὸν θεόν. (The word is fairly common 
in the Gospel.) 

(25) αἰσχύνεσθαι (ii. 28, αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. (Cf. Jn. ili. 20, 
οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς TO φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.) 

(26) παρουσία (once). 

(27) ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα. (? Cf. Jn. ix. 9, ὅμοιος αὐτῷ: 
Vili. 55, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν.) 

(28, 29) Omitted apparently by mistake. 

(30) ἐλπίς. (Once. The word does not occur in any of the 
Gospels. Cf., however, Jn. v. 45, eis ὃν ἠλπίκατε, with 
the passage in the Epistle, iii. 3, ὃ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα 
ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ.) 

(31) ἅγνός. (Once. But ἁγνίζειν, which occurs in the same 
verse, 1s common to both.) 

(32) dvopia. (Zwice. In the same context.) 


81. THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL XV 


(33) ἐφανερώθη 6 vids τοῦ θεοῦ. (Cf. Jn. 1. 31, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 
φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραήλ. ) 

(34) λύειν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. (Cf. Jn. Vii. 23, ἵνα μὴ 

υ ἢ ὁ νόμος: Vili. Al, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. 

(35) τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ γεννήσας (of God). (Ch. Jn. iF, 
ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν: ΜΠ|5:32. σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ.) 

(36) ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστιν. (Φανεροῦν is characteristic of 
both writings.) 

(37) καταγινώσκειν. (Twice. Elsewhere only in Gal. ii. 11.) 

(38) ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν, 6 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. (The contrast is character- 
istically Johannine, though the actual phrases do not 
occur in the Gospel.) 

(39) μένειν ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. (A phrase a in a thoroughly 
Johannine mould. Cf. also Jn. 1 111. 36, 6 δὲ ἀπειθῶν 
τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ΕΣ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.) 

(40) πιστεύειν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ (iil. 22. If we complete 
the phrase, αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, we may compare 
Jn. xx. 31, ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὃ Χριστὸς 6 
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ 
ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ). 

(41) τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. (Cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, 
which is common to both. The one phrase suggests 
the other. ) 

(42) δοκιμάζειν τὰ πνεύματα (once). 

(43) κλείειν τὰ σπλάγχνα. (The verb is common to both.) 

(44) πείθειν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν. (Cf., perhaps, μὴ ταρασσέσθω 
ὑμῶν ἡ καρδιά.) 

(45) ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον. (Cf. Jn. ix. 41, ἡ ἁμαρτία ὑμῶν 
μένει : Vill. 24, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν.) 

(46) τηρεῖν ἑαυτόν, ἑαυτὸν φυλάσσειν. (The former is probably 
not the true text, αὐτόν having better support. With 
τηρεῖ αὐτόν, οἴ. Jn. xvil. 12, ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ 
ὀνόματί μους For φυλάσσειν cf. xvii. 12, καὶ ἐφύλαξα.) 

(47) ὃ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται. (Cf. Jn. xvii. 15, 
ἵνα τηρήσης αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.) 

(48) φόβος, as the opposite of ἀγάπη, the Gospel having only 
φόβος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. Perhaps it is not altogether 
fanciful to see some recollection of the fear which 
kept men from open confession, in the love issuing 
in confidence, which ‘casts out fear.” 

(49) é EXEL τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. (Perhaps we may compare 
Jn. iil. 33, ὃ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσ φράγισ εν). 

(50) κόλασις (once). 

Thus on closer inspection a considerable number of the 

phrases which are actually peculiar to the Epistle remind us 


xvi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 1. 


so strongly of similar phrases and thoughts in the Gospel that 
it is again the resemblance rather than the difference that is 
brought into prominence. The phenomena are not inconsistent 
with the theory of imitation, but they do not find their most 
natural explanation in it. The variations in phrase suggest 
common authorship rather than servile, or even intelligent, 
copying. Both writings show the same characteristics, a small 
vocabulary used and used up; reiteration with slight variations, 
generally conveying some correspondingly slight difference of 
meaning; and no more new words than the differences of 
subject and circumstance call for, and are amply sufficient to 
explain. 

Is there any difference in the ideas and conceptions expressed 
in this similar but not identical phraseology, sufficiently marked 
to compel us to assume a corresponding difference in author- 
ship? 

Such a difference can hardly be found in the λόγος of the 
Gospel Prologue as compared with the vaguer λόγος τῆς ζωῆς of 
the Epistle. No doubt the one phrase describes a difference of 
Person, while the other is impersonal. But the personal distinc- 
tion of vids and πατήρ is as clearly marked in the Epistle as in 
the Gospel. It is possible that the more definite λόγος has been 
avoided in agreement with the growing Monarchian tendencies 
of a later stage of doctrine, but the pre-existent personality of 
‘Him who “came in flesh” is as definitely taught in the Epistle 
as in the Gospel. 

In the Epistle the sum of the ἀγγελία which the writer has 
to announce is said to be that God is light. In the Gospel, 
light is used as a description of the pre-existent and the Incar- 
nate Logos. And in general it has been maintained that the 
Christ of the Epistle is more definitely separated from God and 
brought nearer to the believing Christian. The Christ of the 
Epistle is only Prophet, Example, Advocate, Reconciler. He 
is separated from us by sinlessness rather than by Divinity. 

It is probably true that in the Gospel Christ is always repre- 
sented as the connecting point between God and the world. 
As God is to Christ, so is Christ to ‘‘ His own,” whereas in the 
Epistle this relation is “simplified.” Commentators are divided 
as to whether this is brought about by setting God on the one 
side, Christ and His own on the other, or whether the Epistle 
goes further than the Gospel in the direction of glorifying the 
Christ. The number of passages in the Epistle in which it is 
extremely difficult to decide whether God or Christ is the subject, 
certainly point in the latter direction. But it is doubtful whether 
the differences between Gospel and Epistle are as great as is 
assumed by those who maintain the theory of different author- 





; 
Γ 
j 
: 
᾿ 


§ 1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL xVil 


ship. In the Gospel it is natural that the relation of Christ 
to God on the one hand, and to His followers on the other, 
should be dwelt upon; while in the Epistle the relation of the 
Brethren to the Father should be more prominent. But this 
relationship is always conceived of as realized in and through 
Christ. ‘Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son 
Jesus Christ.” We may compare Jn. xvi. 27, “the Father Him- 
self loveth you”; “I do not say that I will ask the Father 
concerning you.” The difference exists, but it is a difference 
of standpoint and of expression, not a fundamental difference of 
conception. Andit is a difference specially noticeable in certain 
forms of expression which are used, rather than in the general 
teaching of the Epistle as a whole. The Gospel taught who 
and what the Christ is. The Epistle is written to assure those 
who had learned its lesson that, if they will but remember it, 
they can feel sure confidence as to the relationship in which 
they stand to God in His Son Jesus Christ. The differences 
correspond to the different objects of the two writings. 

If this view of the general teaching of the two writings is 
correct, it will explain the similar phenomena which are traceable 
with regard to the ideas of life and love. In the Gospel it 
is Christ who came that they might have life—in the Epistle we 
read ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν 6 θεός : but the author hastens to add, 
“this life is in His Son.” So with love. In the Gospel “the 
love wherewith God loves the faithful is always grounded in 
the love wherewith He loves the Son.” They must abide in the 
Son’s love, as He abides in the love of the Father. In 1 Jn. iv. 
g-11 the stress is laid on the love of God for the world and for 
us. But the intimate connection of this passage with Jn. iii. 16 
certainly suggests that the writer of the Epistle is conscious of 
no fundamental difference of view. Again, in the Gospel it is 
the Logos who gives power τέκνα θεοῦ yevéoGar—in the Epistle it 
is “ἃ direct proof of the love of the Father ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶ- 
μεν, καὶ ἐσμέν." But in all these points it is hardly too much to 
say that a real difference can be established only by ignoring the 
expressions and thoughts in either document which tell the other 
way. It may also be true that in the Gospel the unity of the 
Son with the Father is the type of the union of the faithful 
with the Son, and /Hevezm with the Father (cf. xiv. 20, xvii. 23) ; 
whereas the Epistle speaks more directly, “‘We are in God,” 
“(σα in us”; and the same difference can be traced in the use 
of μένειν. Christ’s command in the Gospel to exercise mutual 
love may be expressed in the Epistle as an ἐντολὴ τοῦ θεοῦ. 
But such differences are not mutually exclusive. To the mind 
of the writer or writers of Gospel and Epistle it is doubtful if 
they would present themselves as differences at all. The 

b 


XVIii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN (§ 1. 


emphasis falls differently. But the final summary of the Epistle, 
if naturally interpreted, points to fundamental unity of concep- 
tion. ‘We are in the true God, in His Son Jesus Christ.” 
“This (the God revealed in Jesus Christ) is the true God and 
eternal life.” The same is true of the conception of the death 
of Christ as propitiatory. Ἵλασμός occurs only in the Epistle. 
The idea is more prominent in the Epistle. It is not absent from 
the Gospel. It is to be found both in what the Evangelist puts 
into the mouth of others, and also in his own comments. 

So, too, with the conception of the Parousia. In both we 
find the spiritual idea of an abiding presence, and the more 
popular conception of a day of judgment, a last day, a last 
hour. The difference is one of emphasis. In the Epistle, as 
well as in the Gospel, eternal life is a present possession, and 
also an object of promise. The many Antichrists and many 
false prophets of the Epistle are its peculiar form of expression, 
but there is room for them in the sufferings of the Disciples 
which are foreseen in Jn. xvi. 2-4, even if we refuse to see in 
the warning of the Gospel, ‘‘If another come in his own name, 
him ye will receive,” a historical reference to Bar-Kochba. 
Popular conceptions may be more prominent in the Epistle, 
though we are not justified in ignoring the “‘spiritualizing” of 
the conception of Antichrist as fulfilled in many forms of 
anti-Christian teaching. But fundamental difference can be 
maintained only by ignoring parts of the evidence. 

The differences of thought and expression make it probable 
that some interval of time should be placed between the com- 
position of the two writings. In view of such differences it is 
difficult, if not impossible, to accept Lightfoot’s view, that the 
Epistle was intended to serve as an Introduction to the Gospel 
written to accompany [11.1 The evidence does not justify the 
conclusion that they cow/d not have been written at the same 
time by the same writer. It does, however, make such a view 
extremely improbable. On the other hand, it is not enough to 
compel us to assume different authors. In most cases of a 
similar kind, certainly in this particular instance, it is practically 
impossible to rove common authorship, as against imitation, or 
similarity produced by common education in the same school 
of thought. We are always on safer ground when we speak of 
the ‘‘ Ephesian Canonical Writings” than when we assign them 
definitely to S. John, Apostle or Elder. But there are no 
adequate reasons for setting aside the traditional view which 
attributes the Epistle and Gospel to the same authorship. It 
remains the most probable explanation of the facts known to us. 


“Unless, indeed, the Epistle was written to accompany its publication 
sometime after it was written. 


81.} THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL xix 


The further conclusion that the theory of common author- 
ship can be maintained only on the hypothesis that the Epistle 
is earlier than the Gospel, is still more precarious. It is really 
based on the assumption that one who had reached the heights 
of the Gospel could never have descended to the more common- 
place conceptions of the Epistle. And this ignores the fact that 
whatever his own highest achievements may have been, the 
author is practically limited by the intelligence and spiritual 
capacity of his readers. ‘The more the Epistle is read and 
studied, the more fixed becomes the impression that we have in 
it an attempt to make plainer, for practical purposes of spiritual 
and religious life, the profound teaching contained in the 
Gospel, which the author had tried to convey to his fellow- 
Christians in all his dealings with them, but which they had in 
large measure failed to make their own. The results of the 
Gospel, or of the teaching which it contained, had not realized 
his expectations. ΤῸ use one of the expressions of that Gospel, 
its message οὐκ ἐχώρει among those with whom the author dwelt 
and for whom he worked. He had to descend to a lower plane. 
But the question of priority must be discussed more fully, and 
in a separate section. 


(b) Priority. 


The discussion of the identity of authorship has at least 
established clearly the close connection which exists between 
the Gospel and the Epistle. The view of the priority of either 
document can be reasonably held in conjunction with that of 
imitation or of identity of authorship, though Holtzmann regards 
the latter view as tenable only on the assumption that the Epistle 
represents an earlier stage in the development of the writer’s 
theological position, At any rate the question can be discussed 
independently of that of authorship. 

The priority of the Epistle has been maintained on the follow- 
ing grounds: 

(1) The introductory verses (1-4), which show many points 
of close connection with the Prologue of the Gospel, are said to 
present an earlier stage of the Logos doctrine. It does not go 
beyond the “personification of abstract categories, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, 
λόγος τῆς ζωῆς," and the concrete conception of the Personal 
Logos has not yet been reached. It is only in the Gospel that the 
Monarchianism, common to the Epistle and other second century 
writings, is met by a clear differentiation of the Person of the 
Father and the Son. 

If our evidence were confined to the Prologue and the Intro- 
duction, this statement might be regarded as satisfactory so far 


ΧΧ THE EPISTLES OF 5: JOHN [8 1. 


as the facts of doctrine contained in the two are concerned. 
But what is perhaps true of the prefatory verses cannot be so 
clearly established for the whole of the Epistle as compared with 
the whole of the Gospel. There are many passages in the 
Epistle where the “ personal differentiation” of the Father and 
the Son is presented as clearly as in the Logos doctrine of the 
Gospel (cf. ii. 22 f., iv. 2, v. το, etc., even if we do not quote the 
third verse of the Epistle), though the relation of Christ to the 
Father is not so prominent a subject of teaching, or speculation, 
in the Epistle as in the Gospel, and the author’s insistence on 
the fact that the fellowship of Christians with God is realized in 
and through their union with Jesus Christ often makes it difficult to 
decide whether particular statements are meant to refer to Christ 
or to God. And even if this statement of the relations between 
the prologues is true, they lend themselves equally well to another 
explanation. It is at least as probable that in the Epistle there 
is a further accommodation to the Monarchian ideas which came 
into greater prominence as time went on. As Réville and others 
have shown, the doctrine of the Gospel was probably far in 
advance of the general Christian opinions and feeling of its 
date. Some accommodation to the average faith of Christen- 
dom would not have been unnatural. 

And the general impression left by a comparison of the two 
passages is that the Preface to the Epistle presents a summary 
of the various points contained in the Prologue, and distributed 
throughout the Gospel, upon which the writer wishes to lay 
stress in the new circumstances that have arisen. Style and 
structure and vocabulary all point clearly to a close connection 
between the two. ‘To those who had been taught on the lines 
of the Prologue to the Gospel the opening expressions of the 
Epistle would be intelligible and full of meaning. It is far more 
difficult to explain the Prologue as an expansion and develop- 
ment of what is contained in the Epistle. 

(2) It has been thought that the ἄλλος παράκλητος of Jn. xiv. 
16 was suggested by the doctrine of the Epistle, which presents 
Christ as the Paraclete (ii. 1). The two ideas are quite different, 
and neither of them excludes the other. In the Epistle, Christ’s 
advocacy is exercised in heaven. He pleads the cause of His 
followers with the Father, to whose presence His “righteousness ” 
gives Him, so to speak, the right of entry. In the Gospel, the 
sphere of the Spirit’s advocacy is on earth, and is consequent 
on the withdrawal of the bodily presence of the Speaker. The 
“advocacy” consists in calling to the remembrance of the 
Disciples the real import of the Lord’s words, in convicting the 
“World” of the mistakes they have made with regard to the 
Christ, and in leading the Disciples into all the truth. A com- 


§1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL ΧΧΙ 


parison of the use of παράκλητος in the Epistle with that found in 
the Gospel yields no indication as to which document is the 
earlier. 

(3) Eschatological teaching. The writer of the Epistle, it is 
said, expects the Parousia in the immediate future. The last 
hour has struck. Antichrist is already at work, or at least the 
work of his subordinates proclaims his near approach. The 
Evangelist has given up this expectation. The ‘ coming” has 
been refined into the symbolical expression of ἃ spiritual 
presence. Here again it may be quite true that the Epistle 
represents average Christian feeling more closely than the 
Gospel. If it is so, modification of more original, and perhaps 
unpopular, views is quite as probable an explanation as 
growth out of the stage of ordinary Christian opinion. In 
reality, however, the difference between the two has been greatly 
exaggerated. Serious divergence can perhaps be maintained 
only by the convenient, but arbitrary, process of eliminating 
from the Gospel all the evidence which tells the other way. The 
language of Jn. v. 26-29, vi. 39, 40, shows that the Evangelist 
had not given up the popular expectation of a “last day” and 
a final judgment. There are many expressions in the farewell 
discourses which point in the same direction. And even if 
there is any real difference, it is not improbable that the events 
in which the writer of the Epistle saw the signs of the approach, 
or the actual advent, of Antichrist may have led to a nearer 
approach, at a later period, to the average Christian expectation, 
which at the time when the Gospel was written, though never 
actually repudiated, was less prominent in the writer’s view. It 
should also be noticed that the “‘spiritualization” of the idea of 
Antichrist in the Epistle is at least as complete as the spirituali- 
zation of popular eschatology in the Gospel. The Parousia, 
which the writer of the Epistle expected, perhaps more eagerly 
than when he wrote the Gospel, was nevertheless a spiritual fact 
rather than an apocalyptic display. 

(4) The Epistle is said to come nearer to the Pauline teaching 
than the Gospel, on the subject of propitiation. In 1. 9, God’s 
justice is put forward as the motive for the forgiveness of sins. 
Christ is spoken of as ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν: cf. 
Ro. 111. 25, Ov προέθετο ὃ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ 
αἵματι. The Evangelist, it is said, conceives of Christ’s work from 
a wholly different standpoint,—the glorifying of the Father by the 
Son in making His name known among men (Jn. xvii. 4-8). 
Again it is a question of proportion rather than of fundamental 
difference. The expiatory character of Christ’s work is not 
specially prominent in the Fourth Gospel, but it is clearly 
recognized, both in the saying ascribed to the Baptist, Ἴδε ὃ 


ΧΧΙΙ THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [§ 1. 


ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὃ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, and in the 
prophecy assigned to Caiaphas (Jn. xi. 51 f.), and the Evangelist’s 
comment upon it, in which some have seen, perhaps rightly, a 
literary connection with 1 Jn. ii. 2. Even if a real difference 
could be established, it would have little bearing on the question 
of priority. 

(5) Some have found in the record of the piercing of the 
side (Jn. xix. 34f.) a reminiscence of 1 Jn. v. 6, involving a 
misunderstanding of that passage. In the Epistle the “ water” 
refers to the Baptism, and has nothing to do with the death of 
Jesus. It should not, it is said, have been introduced in that 
connection. Most scholars will agree with Holtzmann’s judg- 
ment, “nur schwer lasst sich das Missverstindniss beweisen.” 
It would certainly be difficult to prove the misunderstanding. 
It may be added that the connection between the two passages 
is probably not so close as has often been supposed. The 
meaning of the “coming by water and blood” is discussed in 
the notes on the passage, and need not be considered at length 
here. It is far more probable that the incident, real or reputed, 
which the Evangelist records, suggested to the writer of the 
Epistle the significance of water and blood in the Messianic 
work of the Son of God. And this is true whatever relation we 
assume to exist between the Gospel and Epistle. 

(6) Some have detected an improvement in the Greek style 
in the Gospel as compared with the Epistle. The argument 
would no doubt appeal to those who have detected the difference. 
To the ordinary student it is certainly not obvious. It has, of 
course, no force or bearing on the question of priority for those 
who do not accept the common authorship of the two writings. 
And by those who do, Holtzmann’s judgment may again be 
quoted, “65 giebt auch Riickschritte.” 

(7) Stress has also been laid on the fact, if it is a fact, that 
the Epistle was used by Papias and Polycarp at a time when 
certain traces of the Gospel are wanting. It may be sufficient 
to answer, with Holtzmann, that the Gospel was certainly known 
in Justin’s time, and it is not unnatural that the more popular 
writing which gave less offence to traditional Christian opinion 
should have become known first. The argument, however, such 
as it is, loses most of its force if we accept, with Bishop Light- 
foot on the one hand, or Dr. Schwartz on the other, the more 
probable view that Papias knew and used the Fourth Gospel. 

A considerable portion of the evidence which has been put 
forward in favour of the priority of the Gospel is as little con- 
clusive as most of what has been considered on the other side. 
The following points need consideration : 

(1) Many passages in the Epistle seem to need the help of 


§ 1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL XXx1ll 


the Gospel in order to become intelligible. They could only 
have been addressed to those who knew the Gospel, or, at least, 
the teaching which it contains. The following passages are cited 
by Holtzmann : 

ll, 2. καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ov περὶ 
τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. 

Jn. xi. 51f. . .. ἐπροφήτευσεν ὅτι ἔμελλεν Ἰησοῦς ἀποθνήσκειν 
ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους, καὶ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα 
τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν. It is possible to see 
in the words of the Epistle, especially od . . . ἀλλὰ περὶ ὅλου, an 
echo of the language, and still more of the thought, of the Gospel. 
But the instance does not carry us very far. 

11: 23. πᾶς ὃ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει᾽ ὁ ὁμολογῶν 
τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. 

Jn. xv. 23 f. ὃ ἐμὲ μισῶν καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου μισεῖ. . .. νῦν δὲ 
καὶ ἑωράκασιν καὶ μεμισήκασιν καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου. 

There is nothing here to determine the question of priority, 
though the similarity of thought i is obvious. 

il. 27. καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε a ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μένει ἐν ὑμῖν, καὶ 
οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς" ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα διδάσκει 
«ες a ‘ , 
ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων... 

Jn. xiv. 26. ὃ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. .. ἐκεῖνος 
ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ. 

ill. 8. ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 
ὃ διάβολος ἃ ἁμαρτάνει. Cf 1 Jn: iil. 15. 

Jn. νι]. 44. ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ καὶ τὰς ἐπι- 
θυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν 
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν. 

iv. 6. ὃ γινώσκων τὸν θεὸν ἀκούει ἡμῶν, ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ 
οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν. 

Jn. vill. 47. ὃ ὧν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούει" διὰ τοῦτο 
ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ, 

V; 12./6 ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν᾽ ὃ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ 
τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει. 

Jn. ill. 36. ὃ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον" 6 δὲ ἀπειθῶν 
τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν. 

Vv. 14. καὶ arn ἐστὶν ἡ παρρησία ἣν ἔχομεν πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι ἐάν τι 
αἰτώμεθα κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ἀκούει ἡμῶν. 

Jn. xiv. 13. καὶ ὅτι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, τοῦτο ποιήσω 
«νον ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω. 

In none of these instances do we find any thought or expres- 
sion in the Epistle which is obviously, and beyond all doubt, 
borrowed from the Gospel. But there is no mistaking the 
general impression which they convey. Originality and force is 
always in the Gospel rather than in the Epistle, where the thoughts 
are, as a rule, derived and generalized. The writer would seem to 


xxiv THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§1. 


be choosing from a larger store what he can most usefully apply to 
the circumstances with which he is dealing. He has but little, if 
anything, to add to what his readers have already been taught. 
Assume that they have been taught the content of the Gospel, and 
his language is nearly always seen to be intelligible and pertinent. 

It must, of course, be remembered that, even if this is true, it 
does not amount to proof of the priority of the Gospel in actual 
composition. The author had, in all probability, taught its 
contents for some time before he committed them to writing. 
It may well have been that in the course of teaching they 
gradually took shape. Even if we need the Gospel to explain the 
Epistle, the readers of it may have had their necessary com- 
mentary in the author’s oral teaching. 

Attention has been called to the proportion of the closest 
parallels between Gospel and Epistle which are found in chs. 
xill.—xvil. of the Gospel. The proportion is certainly large, if the 
length of these chapters be compared with that of the whole 
Gospel. The situation depicted in the last discourses, where the 
Christ gives His last instructions to the Disciples whom He is 
about to leave, naturally offers more points of contact with that 
of the Pastor committing, perhaps, his last words to writing for 
the sake of his “‘ children,” than the earlier chapters of the Gospel 
which show the Christ disputing with the Jews. The aim of the 
Epistle is far more to encourage and to build up than to warn 
and destroy, though the critical examination of its contents tends 
to bring the passages devoted to controversy into greater pro- 
minence than those which deal with edification. But the point 
has really no bearing on the question of priority. 

The supposed direct references to the Gospel which are to 
be found in the Epistle must be considered next. It has been 
maintained that the ἀπαγγελία announced in the Epistle (i. 3, 5), 
that God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all, is not 
really carried out in the Epistle itself; and that the reference 
must therefore be to the Gospel. This is doubtful, especially 
in view of the identification of Christ with the ‘ Light” in the 
Gospel as compared with the announcement of the Epistle that 
God is light. There is much about light and darkness in both, 
as Dionysius of Alexandria saw: but it can hardly be said that 
the announcement “ God is light” is the message of the Gospel 
as a whole more than of the Epistle. And the idea which the 
phrase is introduced to emphasize, that fellowship with God is 
possible only for those who, so far as in them lies, strive to make 
themselves like Him, is one of the leading thoughts of the 
Epistle. It is true that the Epistle does not deal with the whole 
message about life, as detailed in the first verse, “that which was 
from the beginning, that which we have heard and seen,” etc., and 


§1.] THE EPISTLES AND THE GOSPEL XXV 


that in a sense the Gospel might be said to include it all.! But 
there is no necessary reference to the Gospel. The whole of the 
witness which their Christian teachers had borne to them, and 
the whole of the teaching which they had received from them, 
and especially from the writer of the Epistle, is a more natural 
explanation. 

The other direct reference, as has been supposed, is found in 
li. 14 (ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία x.7.A.), where the triple ἔγραψα has 
been thought to refer to the Gospel. The change from present 
to aorist is difficult to explain. Perhaps no thoroughly satis- 
factory explanation can be offered. At first sight the reference 
to the Gospel is tempting. But the reference must have been 
made more explicit if it was to be intelligible, unless, indeed, the 
Epistle was written to accompany the Gospel, in which case the 
difference between γράφω and ἔγραψα has less point. And the 
reasons given for writing are not specially applicable to the Gospel, 
either in themselves or as distinguished from the almost identical 
reasons given for the three statements introduced by γράφω. 

The theory that the Epistle was written as a Beglettungs- 
schrift, when the Gospel was published, deserves consideration. 
The case has been best stated by Ebrard, who tries to show that 
the false teaching of Cerinthus is really combated in the 
Gospel—written to prove the identity of Jesus with ‘the 
Christ, the Son of God” and God’s agent in Creation, as 
contrasted with ‘“‘an inferior power,” ignorant of the Supreme 
God—as well as in the Epistle. The theory was held by Bishop 
Lightfoot, who refers to it three times in his lectures on S. John, 
but apparently never gave his reasons in full. It must stand or 
fall with the identity of aim and content of the two writings. The 
differences in vocabulary, style, and thought, which have been 
discussed in the previous section, lead to no definite conclusion. 
They merely make it difficult to suppose that the two writings 
are of exactly the same date. 

The connection between the introductory verses and the 
Prologue of the Gospel has already been mentioned. If the 
whole is most easily explained as presupposing the Prologue, a 
closer examination of ver. 2 almost compels us to take this view. 


καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη (taking up the ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἢν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν τὸ φῶς 


λόγος τῆς ζωῆς) τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα 
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. 
καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν. ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ, 


Cf. καὶ ὑμεῖς μαρτυρεῖτε, ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς 
μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (xv. 27) 





1 Perhaps the phrase καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν of ver. 4 implies that vv. 1-3 
contain something more than a summary of the contemplated letter. 


XXxvi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 1. 


καί ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν Cf. ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται... ἵνα 


αἰώνιον (... ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοιν- πιστεύητε. . . καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες 
wvlav ἔχητε κ.τ.λ.) ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῳ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. 
ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα οὗτος ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 
/ « “ ) , ες ~ Ez 
καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν. καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα. 


There can be no doubt on which side the originality lies. 
The Epistle presents a summary, nota first sketch. 

The exact interpretation of the ἐντολὴ καινὴ καὶ παλαιά of 
11. 7, 8 is doubtful. But in the language used in these verses 
there is an almost certain reference to the “new commandment ” 
of Jn. xiii. 34. Cf. especially 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. 
The Lord had made a new commandment of the old legal precept, 
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” It becomes new 
again in each Christian who fulfils it by obedience. 

The expressions used in ii. tof., of love and light, hatred 
and darkness, appear to be a summary of the teaching con- 
tained in different passages of the Gospel (cf. xi. 9, το, xii. 
25 ff). 

; The ‘‘promise which He promised, even eternal life” 
(ii. 25), 1s most naturally explained by reference to Jn. x. 28 
(κἀγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ od μὴ ἀπολῶνται εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα). Should we also compare xiv. 19, ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς 
ζήσετεῦ 

The section iii. 8-15, with its distinction of those who are 
born of God and those who are “of the Devil,” who sinneth 
from the beginning, and its denunciation of the murderous 
character of hatred, recalls the passage of the Gospel (viii. 
40-44) where the Jews are proved to be “of the Devil” by the 
murderous hate with which they pursue the Lord, so closely 
that we are compelled to see dependence on its substance if 
not on itstext. Again it is the Gospel that is “ original,” though 
we may hesitate to follow Wellhausen in making use of the 
Epistle to rewrite the Gospel in its original form as presupposed 
by the Epistle (ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Katy ἐστε) in order 
to get a simpler explanation of 6 πατὴρ αὐτοῦ in ver. 44. In 
the Epistle we find again the generalization of thoughts first 
struck out in the heat of controversy. 

The ‘coming by water and blood” is not to be explained as 
a direct reference to the incident recorded in Jn. xix. 35. But 
it is almost certain that the record of that incident suggested 
to the writer of the Epistle the significance of “‘blood” and 
of “water” in the Messianic work of the Redeemer. 

These instances could easily be multiplied, but they are 
representative. None of them amount to proof positive of the 
writer’s actual dependence on the text of the Gospel. But 
their evidence, such as it is, all points in the same direction. The 


§ 2.] THE AIM XXVil 


Epistle presupposes in its readers acquaintance with “a compact ἢ 
body of teaching like that which we find in the Fourth Gospel,” j/ 
to use Dr. Sanday’s phrase.t And the general impression 
gained from studying the two writings is convincing. The 
impression left—the more clearly the longer the Epistle is 
studied—is that it was written to help and to warn those for 
whom the teaching of the Gospel, or ‘‘a body of teaching like” 
it, had not accomplished all that the writer had hoped. 
Throughout it is an appeal to the readers to use that which 
they already possess. It never should have been necessary, the 
writer seems to say, for him to write the Epistle. They needed 
no further instruction, if they would but make use of what had 
been theirs ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. Their own experience should be able 
to do the rest. He writes to them not because they do not 
know, but because they know. ‘They have received sufficient 
instruction and full illumination. They ‘all know.” But 
knowledge has not been adequately translated into corre- 
sponding action and conduct. It has not been realized in 
life. And so there is doubt and hesitation in the face of new 
difficulties and changed circumstances. The whole aim of the 
Epistle is to recall to mind and to supplement what has long 
ago been fully given, but not adequately grasped. It is not, 
the earnest of things to come. It owes its existence to the! 
failure to make the most of the abundance that has been given. 
It is the aftermath, not the first-fruits, of the writer’s message 
to the Church. 

These considerations, if they accurately represent the facts, 
determine with certainty the question of priority, so far as the) 
substantial content of the two documents is concerned. They | 
do not perhaps preclude the possibility of a later date for the 
actual composition, or publication, of the Gospel. But in view 
of them such hypotheses are extremely unlikely. 


§ 2. THE AIM, 


The more definitely polemical aim of the Epistles is dis- 
cussed in another section, where the passages which contain 
clear references to the tenets of the opponents are fully con- 
sidered, as well as the extent to which the writer has them 
in view in other passages not so directly controversial in tone, 
and indeed throughout the Epistle. It is probably true that 
the writer never loses sight altogether of the views of his 
Opponents in any part of the Epistle. But it is important- 
to emphasize the fact that, in spite of this, the real_aim_—of-the 
Epistle is not ot exclusively, ὁ or _even_ primarily, polemical, The 


Ὕ Recent Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 245. er, 


XXVill THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 2. 


edification of his ‘‘children”. in the true faith and_ life. of 
Christians is the writer’s chief purpose. The errors of the 
opponents do not constitute the only danger. The victory 
has been won, if only after a hard-fought battle, and the 
opponents, whose errors have been unmasked, “‘have gone out 
from among us,” or at least the leaders of the movement have 
withdrawn or been expelled. But there is still strong sympathy 
with their/views, and perhaps acute danger of their return in 
power. The real danger is the attitude of the “children” 
themselves towards the Christian faith and life. The enthusiasm 
of the early days of the Faith is no longer theirs. Many of 
them had been brought up as Christians, and did not owe their 
faith to strong personal conviction or experience. Their 
Christianity had become largely traditional, half-hearted and 
nominal. They found the moral obligations of their religion 
oppressive. The “world” had great attractions for them. 
They wished to be on better terms with it than their Faith 
_allowed. They were only too ready to welcome elements of 
religious and philosophical speculation foreign to the Faith and 
really destructive of it. They could not tolerate a sharp distinc- 
tion between Christian and Unchristian in belief and practice. 
And therefore they were easily deceived by specious novelties. 
They had lost their instinctive feeling for what was of the 
essence of the Faith which they had received, or lay on the line 
of true development, and what was antagonistic to it. And 
‘another consequence of this “loss of their first love” was doubt 
and uncertainty as to their position as Christians. This is 
clearly seen if the verses introduced by ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν 
or similar phrases are studied. Nine times at least the writer 
voffers his readers tests by which they m may assure themselves 
about the truth _ of their Christian Position (i. 2, ἐν τούτῳ 
γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν: 5 ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν. ὅτι ἐν 
αὐτῷ ἐσμεν: 1 1. 16, ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν. τὴν ἀγάπην: IQ, ἐν τούτῳ 
γνωσόμεθα ὅ οτι ἐκ τῆς i υγθείας ἐ ἐσμέν: oy ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν. ὅτι μένει 
ἐν ἡμῖν: iv. 2; ἐν τούτῳ “γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ: 6, ἐκ τούτου 
γινώσκομεν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας: 13, ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν 
αὐτῷ μένομεν: V. 2, ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ 
θεοῦ). The writer’s aim in this ninefold “hereby we know” 
cannot be only to set forth the true knowledge in opposition to 
the false “Gnosis” of his Gnostic opponents. Clearly his readers 
jhad felt the doubts which had grown in force in proportion as 
the enthusiasm of earlier days had waxed cold. 

This view of the circumstances and condition of the Church 
or Churches addressed has been maintained by several writers, 
among whom Liicke and Rothe may be especially mentioned. 
It is presupposed in the words in which the author expresses 


§ 2.] THE AIM xxix 


the aim of his writing, before summing up the chief points of 
his message, ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, 
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. also i. 4, ii. 1. 
Rothe’s words are worth quoting: ‘‘ Der Apostel denkt sich also 
seine Leser als solche, in denen die urspriingliche Klarheit des 
eigenthimlichen christlichen Bewusstseins verdunkelt, sein 
sciherer, scharf alles Unchristliche unterscheidender Tact 
abgestumpft, in denen die Frische des eigenthiimlichen geist- 
lichen Lebens ermattet, die Lauterkeit desselben verunreinigt ist.” 
Huther’s rejection of this view on the ground of such passages 
as li. 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, lll. 5, 14, Iv. 4, 16, v. 18-20, meets 
with Holtzmann’s approval. The picture which they present 
of the readers’ state is too favourable to admit of such dark 
shortcomings. In reality it is just these passages which prove 
the point. The writer appeals to their privileged position and 
past victories. They are of those whose sins have been forgiven, 
who have known the Eternal, who have won the victory, in 
whom the Word of God abides. On these grounds he can 
appeal to them. But if they had been true to their privileges 
and their knowledge, it would not have been necessary to make 
the appeal. Those of whom ii. 13, 14 were true ought not 
to have needed the warning of ver. 15, Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον 
μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ: They have the unction of the Spirit, 
knowledge is the possession of them all. He wrote to the 
not because of their ignorance, but their knowledge of the truth! 
He would recall to new life what is in danger of dying away. 
They do not need teaching, if only they will use the powers 
which they possess (20, 21, 27). He would not write thus, 
unless they had in some measure failed to do their part. The 
extent of the failure must be measured by the gravity of the 
danger. They are of God, and have won a notable victory 
over the opponents (iv. 4). But they have to be reminded of 
the facts to urge them to the needed effort. The summary in 
v. 18-20 of what they know, and ought to use, has to be com- 
pleted by the warning of ver. 21, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν 
εἰδώλων. 

Holtzmann has done good service towards the interpretation 
of the Epistle by showing how clearly Gnostic ideas are reflected 
throughout the Epistle. The writer always makes it his aim to 
set forth the true ‘‘knowledge” of Apostolic Christianity in its 
opposition to the false gnosis for which such great claims were 
made. And it is of primary importance to realize the undoubted 
polemical aim of much of its contents, and the modifications in 
his statement of what he believes to be positive truth, which are 
due to the fact that he never loses sight, in anything that he 

1 Rothe, Der erste Brief Johannis, p. 4. 


XXX THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 3. 


says, of the false teaching and unchristian conduct of his 
Opponents. But it is at least as important to remember that 

“his primary objects are to exhort and to edify. He is a pastor 
first, an orthodox theologian only afterwards. He cannot 
separate doctrine from ethics. But it is the life which he cares 
about. For him the Christian Faith is a life of fellowship “ with 
the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” His first object in 
writing is to help his fellow-Christians to lead this life of fellow- 
ship, that his joy and theirs may be fulfilled. And no interpre- 
tation of the Epistle is likely to elucidate his meaning satis- 
factorily if it fails to realize where the writer’s interest really lies. 
The nature and character of the false teaching denounced in 
the Epistle is a fascinating problem. But even a satisfactory 
solution of it would fail to provide an adequate explanation of 
the Epistle. Those methods of exegesis are unscientific which 
lay too exclusive stress on the doctrine which it teaches or the 
heresy which it seeks to refute. They tend to obscure rather 
than to elucidate the author’s meaning. The polemical and 
controversial aims of the Epistle are considered at length else- 
where. Here it is only necessary to insist on the importance, 
for the right understanding of the Epistle, of fully recognizing 
the writer’s other aims. 


§ 3. DESTINATION. 


The general character of the Epistles, even of the First, 
show that they are almost certainly addressed to a definite 
Church, or group of Churches, the circumstances and diffi- 
culties of which were well known to the writer, or writers, of the 
Letters. The author of the First Epistle writes to Christians 
whom he knows, with whose needs he is fully acquainted, whom 
he has the right to help, and who acknowledge his right. The 
texvia are zot the whole body of Christians dispersed through- 
out the world. But we have nothing to help us in determining 
the destination of the Epistles beyond the universal tradition 
which connects them with Ephesus, or at least Asia Minor, the 
earliest traces of their appearance, and the undoubted connec- 
tion of some of the Johannine literature with the Roman 
province of Asia. 

In the “‘antiqua translatio” of Cassiodorus (Zzstit. Div. lit. 
14) all three Epistles apparently bore the title “ad Parthos,” 
and in his Complextones (ll. 1370) the First Epistle is so desig- 
nated.!. This attribution was not uncommon in the West. It 
is first found in Augustine, in the title of his ten Zvactatus (“in 


1Cf. Zahn, Forschungen, iii. 92, etc., from whom most of the information 
in this paragraph is taken. 


8 3.] DESTINATION XXxi 


epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos”) and also in his Quaest. Ev. ii. 
39. 1.1 Vigilius (Ὁ Idacius Clarus) inthe Contra Varimadum 
introduces the gloss of the heavenly witnesses with the words 
“Ttem ipse ad Parthos.” The title found in a Genevan MS 
(Sabatier), “‘incipit epistola ad Sparthos,” suggests a Greek 
origin for the title (πρὸς πάρθους, the s of the preposition having 
been dittographed), or at least a Greek archetype for the title 
as it occurs in that MS. According to Bede the title was found 
in ‘‘many ecclesiastical writers,” including Athanasius. The 
title Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολὴ β΄ πρὸς πάρθους is found in the Greek 
minuscule, Oxford, Bodleian. Misc. 74 (Scr. 30, von Soden 
a 111)},2 and in the Florentine MS, Laur. iv. 32 (Scr. 89), both 
of the eleventh century. It appears also as colophon in a 
Paris MS of the fourteenth century (Reg. Gr. 60, olim Colb. ; 
Scr. 62). 

The title would therefore appear to have originated in the 
East, from whence it may well have reached the West as early 
as the time of Athanasius. Various explanations of the title 
have been suggested. (1) It has been supposed to be a 
corruption of πρὸς παρθένους (cf. “Clement” quae ad uirgines 
scripta). Its reference to the First Epistle has been explained 
as the result of mistaking the title of the Second for the 
colophon of the First. (2) Zahn suggests that the real explana- 
tion is to be found in the next phrase of Clement’s Adumbra- 
tiones, “Scripta uero est ad quandam Babyloniam, electam 
nomine.” Clement takes the “Babylonian” lady for a real 
person, whose children are mentioned later in the Epistle. He 
cannot, therefore, have written πρὸς παρθένους, which must be a 
corruption of zpos πάρθους, which his translator read as παρθένους 
and translated accordingly. If a title corresponding to πρὸς 
Taddras, ‘EBpatouvs, and the like was tobe found for the Baby- 
lonian lady and her children, πρὸς πάρθους would be the natural 
title to use in the time of Clement. There is no tradition of 
relations between S. John and Babylon or Parthians. The 
title must have been suggested by the name of the recipient, and 
not vice versa. Zahn further suggests that Clement must have 
identified the ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ of the Second Epistle with the ἡ ἐν 
Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή Of I P v. 12. The difficulty raised by the 
passage in Eus. 17. £. 11. 15, which apparently makes Clement 
interpret that phrase allegorically of Rome, Zahn meets by 
pointing out the uncertainty of how much of the Eusebian 
passage can be rightly referred to Clement. (Cf. ἣν καὶ συντάξαι 
φασὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης.) 

1 “*Secundum sententiam hance etiam illud est quod dictum est a Ioanne 


in epistola ad Parthos,” 
4 Cf. Mill, p. clx. 


XXXii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [δ 4. 


Zahn’s explanation of the origin of the title is certainly the 
most ingenious which has been suggested. It offers an adequate 
explanation of the opening sentences in the Latin summary of 
Clement’s comments on the Second Epistle. If the explanation 
of the title of the First Epistle, or of all three, is to be sought 
in this passage of Clement, Zahn’s hypothesis offers the most 
probable solution of the question. But our knowledge is too 
scanty to enable us to attain to certainty in the matter. 

(3) Lticke has accepted the suggestion which, according to 
him, was first made by Gieseler, that πάρθους has arisen out of 
a misunderstanding of the title πάρθενος which was given to 
S. John (cf. Pistis Sophia, ed. Petermann, p. 45, εὖγε Johannes 
παρθένος, qui ἄρξεις in regno lucis, quoted by Zahn, Acta 
Johannts, p. ci, who traces back the probable origin of the 
tradition of John’s “ virginity” to the Leucian Acts). 

But whatever may be said for these ingenious conjectures, there 
is no reason to suppose that the title which we find in Augustine, 
and which may have been used by Clement of Alexandria, rests 
on any trustworthy tradition about the destination of the 
Epistles. We have nothing but internal evidence to guide us 
in determining the question. Nothing in the Epistles them- 
selves affords any clear guidance in the matter ; but the evidence, 
such as it is, gives us no reason to distrust the tradition which 
connects them with Asia Minor, and especially Ephesus. The 
Apocalypse is clearly connected with Ephesus, and we are 
certainly justified in attributing all the Johannine Books to the 
same school, though not to the same author. The question 
cannot really be discussed apart from the Gospel. The district 
of Asia Minor meets all the known requirements of the case, 
and the literary history of the Epistles, as well as of the Gospel, 
shows that it is in this region that we first meet with traces of 
their existence. It is natural, therefore, to suppose that the 
origin and destination of the Epistles are to be found in this 
region, 


§ 4. ANALYSIS. 


While some agreement is found with regard to the possible 
division of the First Epistle into paragraphs, no analysis of the 
Epistle has been generally accepted. The aphoristic character 
of the writer’s meditations is the real cause of this diversity of 
arrangement, and perhaps the attempt to analyse the Epistle 
should be abandoned as useless. 

According to Von Soden (Die Schriften des NT. i. 1, p. 
459), the commonest system of κεφάλαια and ὕποδιαιρ ἔσεις is 
as follows: 


; 4.] ANALYSIS Xxxiii 


Κεῴφαλαια Iwavvov ἐπιστολῆς mpwrys 


a. (i. 1) επαγγελικη θεολογια περι Χριστου, ev ὦ. 

(i. 6) περι εξομολογησεως καὶ προσοχῆς 
εἰς TO μὴ αμαρτανειν. 

(ii, 3) οτι ἡ τηρήησις evtoAwy θεου τὴν 
γνωσιν βεβαιοι. 

B. (ii. 7) περι ἀγαπης ns avev aceBea, ev w. 

(il. 12) παραινεσις περι χαριτος εκαστου καθ 
ἡλικιαν καὶ περι ἀποτροπῆς τῆς 
προς TOV κοσμον ἀγαπης. 

γ- (ii. 18) περι ψευδαφελῴων αρνησιθεων και ore 7 ets 

Χριστον ευσεβεια πατρος ομολογια, ἡ yap Tov 

πατρος δοξολογια του wov εστι θεολογια, εν w. 

(ii. 26) περι θειου και πνευματικου χαρισματος εν 
αγιασμω er ελπιδι εἰς γνωσιν θεου. 
(iii. 2) οτι mas ὁ ev Χριστω εκτος αμαρτιας. 

0 yap αμαρτανὼν εστιν εκ Tov διαβολου. 

δ. (iii. 9 or 100) περι ἀγαπης της εἰς τον πλησιον και διαθεσεως 

μεταδοτικης, εν ὦ. 

(iii. 19) περι συνειδήσεως αγαθὴς της εν πιστει 

Ιησου Χριστου. 

(iv. 1) περι διακρισεως πνευματων ed ομολογια 
τῆς του Χριστου ἐενανθρωπησεως. 
ε. (iv. 7) περι φιλαδελῴιας εἰς θεοσεβειαν. 
5. (iv. 15 Orv. 1) περι θεολογιας υἱου ev δοξη πατρος και περι 
νικης τῆς κατα του πονήρου δια πιστεως 

Ιησου Χριστου εἰς ζωην. 

a (v. 16) περι αντιληψεως Tov apaptavovros adeAdov δια 

προσευχῆς και περι TOV μὴ apapTaveELY, εν ὦ. 

(v. 18) περι αποχὴς δαιμονικου σεβασματος. 


Κεφαλαια Ιωαννου επιστολῆης δευτερας. 


α. (i. 4) μετα το προοιμιον περι ορθου βιου ev ayarn 
θεου δια πιστεως ευσεβους αμεταθετου, ev ὠ. 
(i. 10) οτι ov δει αἰρετικον εἰσοικίζειν ἡ χαιρετι- 
lev eh αμαρτια 
B. (i. 12) ἐπαγγελια παρουσιας αὐτου er ελπιδὶ προς 
ὠφελειαν. 


Κεῴφαλαια Iwavvov επιστολης τριτης. 


α. (i. 2) εὐχὴ ὑπερ τελειώσεως καὶ ευχαριστιας Ed 
ομολογια φιλοξενιας των αδελῴφων δια Χριστον, 
εν . 
(i. 9) περι τῆς Διοτρεφους φαυλοτητος και 
μισαδελῴφιας. 


ΧΧΧΙΥ͂ THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 4. 


p. (i. 12) περι Δημήτριου, ὦ μαρτυρει τα καλλιστα. 
γ. (i. 13) περι αφιξεως αὐτου προς αὐτους er ὠφελεια εν 
τάχει. 


By far the most successful attempt to analyse the Epistle in 
such a manner as to show that there is a real underlying sequence 
of thought which can be represented, at least to some extent, in the 
form of analysis, is that of Theodor Haring (“‘ Gedankengang und 
Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefs,” Theol. Abhandlungen, 
Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg i. B., 1892, Mohr). He 
finds in the Epistle a triple presentation of two leading ideas, 
which may be called an Ethical and a Christological Thesis. 
(1) The ethical thesis is developed in the sections i. 5—i. 17, 
11. 28 (?)-1i1. 24, iv. 7-21, “without walking in light,” more 
specially defined as “love of the brethren, there can be no 
fellowship with God.” (2) The Christological thesis is found in 
the sections ii. 18-27, iv. 1-6, v. 1 (or 5)-12, “‘beware of those 
who deny that Jesus is the Christ.” In the first part (i. 5-il. 27) 
these ideas are presented, the one after the other, without any 
indication of their connection with each other. In the second 
(ii. 28 (?)-1v. 6), they are again presented in the same order, but 
vv. 23, 24 of ch. iii., which form the transition from the one to 
the other, are so worded as to bring out clearly the intimate 
connection which, in the author’s mind, exists between the 
two. In the third (iv. 7—v. 12), they are so intertwined that it is 
difficult, if not impossible, to separate them. 

As Haring’s analysis has generally been followed in the notes 
of this edition, it may be convenient to give it here, at least in 
substance.! 

i. 1-4. Introduction. 

A. i. 5-li. 27. First presentation of the two tests of fellow- 
ship with God (ethical and Christological theses) expressed 
negatively. First exposure of the two “lies.” No reference to 
the mutual relations of the two theses. 

I. i. 5-ἰ1. 17. Walking in light the true sign of fellowship 
with God (ethical thesis). Refutation of the first “lie.” 

I. i. 5-il. 6. The thesis itself put forward in two parallel 

statements. 

a. i. 5-10 (vv. 8-10 being subordinate to the main 
thought, to guard against possidle misunder- 
standing). 

ὦ. ii. 1-6. (τό and 2 being similarly subordinate). The 
chief differences between a@ and ὁ consist in the 
terms used, Fellowship with God, Knowledge of 
God, Being in God; and Walking in Light, 

ΤῊ one part an attempt at a different analysis has been substituted 
(iii. 11-24) where I find myself unable to follow that of Haring. 


§ 4.] ANALYSIS XXXV 


Keeping the Commandments, Not-sinning, Keeping 
the Word. 

2. 11. 7-17. The thesis, and the warning which it suggests, 
put forward on the grounds of the reader’s circum- 
stances and experience. The old command is 
ever new, because the full revelation of God is 
working in them, Further definition of walking in 
light and keeping the command as love of the 
brethren, as opposed to love of the world. 

Subsections : 

a. ii. 7-11. General explanation. Love of the brethren. 

ὦ. 11. 12-17. Individual application. Warning against 
love of the world. 

11. ii. 18-27. Faith in Jesus as Christ the test of fellowship 
with God (Christological thesis). Refutation of the second 
ce lie.” 

1. il. 18. Appearance of Antichrists a sign of the last hour. 

2. 11. 19-21. Their relation to the community. 

3. ll. 22-25. Content and significance of their false teaching. 

4. li. 26-27. Repeated assurance that the readers are in 
possession of the truth. 

B. ii. 28-1v. 6. Second presentation of the two theses, 
separately, but with special emphasis (cf. ili, 22-24) on their 
connection. 

I. ii. 28-i1i. 24. Doing of Righteousness (which in essence is 
identical with love of the brethren) the sign by which we may 
know that we are born of God. Warning suggested by this 
truth. 

I. 11, 28-111. 6. The thesis and the warning that we must 
recognize its truth, considered in connection with 
the duty of self-purification which is laid upon us 
by the gift of sonship and the hope of its consumma- 
tion. Earnest warning (1) that there are more 
*‘ Anomians ” than is supposed, (2) that knowledge 
of God and sin are incompatible. 

Subsections : 

a. 11. 28-iil. 3. 

ὅ. iil. 4-6. 

2. iil, 7-18. Explanation of the thesis, with earnest warning 
against deceivers. 

a. iil. 7-10. Negatively. He who sins is of the Devil. 

ὦ. iil. 10-17. By more particular definition of sin as 
failure to love the brethren, and of love as the 
opposite of this. 

111. 11, 12. [The nature and motives of love and hate. 
lil. 13-16. The attitude of the world. Love and life. 


XXXVI THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 4. 


Hatred and death. The example of Christ, the 
revelation of love. 
iii. 17, 18. The lesser proof of love and its absence. 

3. iil. 19-22. This is the test by which we may know if we 
are of the truth, and so still the accusations of our 
heart. Confidence in God and the hearing of 
prayer. 

iii. 23, 24. Transition to the second thesis. The com- 
mand summed up in the two duties of belief and 
love. Obedience issues in fellowship. The test by 
which the reality of the fellowship may be proved. 
The gift of the Spirit. | 

II. iv. 1-6. The Christological thesis. The Spirit which is 
of God confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh. 

I. iv. 1-3. Content of the confession. 

2. iv. 4-6. Attitude of the Church and the world. 

C. iv. 7-v. 12. Third presentation of the theses. Both are 
shown to be connected. The reasons why they cannot be 
separated are given. Love the proof of fellowship with God, 
because God is Love. This love of God shown in the sending 
of His Son, as faith conceives it. Intentional intermingling of 
the two leading thoughts in two sections. 

I. First explanation of the two ideas as now combined. 
Love based on faith in the revelation of love the proof of 
knowing God and being born of God. 

I. iv. 7-12. Love based on the revelation of love. 

a. 7-10. 

O: ΤΊ 12; 

2. iv. 13-16. Faith in this revelation of love in Jesus through 
the Spirit. 

3. iv. 17-21. This love based on faith in its relation to 

Judgment (17-18), recapitulation (19-21). 

II. Second explanation of the connected thoughts. Faith as 
the base of love. 

I. v. ta. Faith the proof of being born of God. 

2. vy. 14-4. As the ground of love of the brethren, love of 

God the sign of love of the brethren. 

3. Vv. 5-12. Faith, in its assurance, the witness that Jesus is 
the Christ. 

v. 13-21. Conclusion. 

The divisions adopted by Mr. R. Law in his study of the 
First Epistle (Ze Zests of Life: Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1909) 
have many points of agreement with Haring’s scheme. He 
finds in the Epistle a threefold application of three tests by 
which the readers may satisfy themselves of their being “ be- 
gotten of God.” 


§ 4.] ANALYSIS XXXVIi 


First Cycle, i. 5-11. 28. The Christian life as fellowship with 
God, conditioned and tested by walking in the light. 

Walking in the light tested by— 

a. Righteousness, 1. 6-11. 6. 
ὦ. Love, 11. 7-17. 
ς. Belief, ii. 18-28. 

Second Cycle, ii. 29-iv. 6. The Christian life as that of 
Divine Sonship, approved by the same tests. 

Divine Sonship tested by— 

a. Righteousness, 11. 29—ili. 10a. 
b. Love, 111. 10-242. 
c. Belief, iti. 240-iv. 6. 
Third Cycle, iv. 7-v. 21. Closer correlation of Righteous- 
ness, Love, and Belief. 
Section I. iv. 7-v. 3a. Love. 
a. The genesis of love, iv. 7-12. 
ὦ. The synthesis of belief and love, iv. 13-16. 
c. The effect, motives, and manifestations of love, 
iv. I7-V. 3a. 
Section II. v. 3-21. Belief. 
a. The power, content, basis, and issue of Christian 
belief, v. 3a-12. 
ὦ. The certainties of Christian belief, v. 13-21. 

The substantial agreement of this analysis with that of Haring 
is remarkable, as Mr. Law explains in an appended note that 
Hiaring’s article was unknown to him at the time when he wrote 
the chapter which contains his analysis. It fails, however, to 
separate off the “‘ Epilogue,” and is hardly so helpful as Haring’s 
scheme in tracing the (probable) sequence of thought. In parts 
it becomes rather an enumeration of subjects than an analysis. 
It also obscures the writer’s insistence that the showing of love, 
in the sphere where circumstances made it possible, 2.6. to the 
brethren, is the first and most obvious expression of the right- 
eousness which is obedience to God’s command, and which 
belief in Jesus as the Christ inspires. 

An interesting correspondence between Dr. Westcott and 
Dr. Hort about the Divisions of the First Epistle has been 
published by the Rev. A. Westcott in the Zxfosztor (111. 481 ff., 
1907). It contains several schemes, of which the most interest- 
ing is Dr. Hort’s Second Scheme of Divisions (p. 486) and his 
remarks upon it (p. 485f.). The scheme is as follows: 

1. 1-4. Introduction. 
1. 5-li. 17. God and the true light: goodness, not in- 
difference. 
ii. 18-iii. 24. Sonship to God, and hence likeness to His 
Son, and of aéiding in Him. 


ΧΧΧΥΙΙ THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [δ 5. 


iv. I-v. 17. Faith resting on knowledge of the truth the 

mark of the Divine Spirit, not indifference. 

v. 18-21. Conclusion. The Christian knowledge: the 
true and the false. 

One paragraph of his appended remarks is so suggestive that 
it must be quoted in full. ‘The base of all, the first and the 
last, is the Christian knowledge, ‘That which we have seen and 
heard’ (οἴδαμεν). This is the necessary condition of Faith (III.), 
which is the necessary condition of Love (II.), which is the 
necessary condition of obedience (I.). After the Prologue we 
begin with this last simplest region, and feel our way downwards, 
naturally taking with us the results already obtained. Obedience 
is associated with light and the Father; Love, with abiding and 
the Anointed Son; Faith, with truth and the Spirit.” It would 
be difficult to find in the whole literature of the Johannine 
Epistles a more helpful clue in tracing the underlying connections 
of the ‘‘aphoristic meditations” contained in this Epistle. 
Mr. Law does not say whether this correspondence was known 
to him when he framed his scheme. If not, his underlying 
agreement with the suggestions of this paragraph, though not 
with the actual scheme proposed, is highly significant. But 
his threefold presentation of a twofold idea brings out more 
clearly the writer’s meaning and purpose. Belief and practice, 
faith and works, and the connection between the two, is his real 
subject. The showing of love is the most obvious example of 
the doing of righteousness ( = obedience). 

It is interesting also to notice that Dr. Westcott was anxious 
to transfer the passage iv. 1-6 from the third to the second 
section (cf. Haring), to which Dr. Hort replied, “ As far as I can 
see, the symmetry of the Epistle cannot be restored if iv. 1-6 
is thrown back.” This is probably true if (p. 485) “the three 
great divisions themselves have a ternary structure.” Dr. 
Westcott also pleads for the “retention of the Epilogue (v. 13- 
21) instead of the connection of 13-17 with what precedes. 
On both these points the arrangement preferred by Dr. Westcott 
and Dr. Haring seems the better. 


§ 5. THE FatsE TEACHERS. 


The exact nature of the false teaching which is denounced in 
these Epistles has been much disputed, and is still a matter of 
controversy. The opponents have been held to be Jews, or 
Judaizing Christians, or Gnostics, Judaizing or heathen, or some 
particular sect of Gnostics, Basilides, Saturninus, Valentinus or 
Cerinthus. Some have supposed the chief error denounced to 
be Docetism, others Antinomianism. A majority of interpreters 


$ 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS ΧΧΧΙΧ 


still perhaps regard Cerinthianism, or teaching similar in 
character and tendency, as the main object of the writer’s de- 
nunciation. This view has, however, been seriously challenged 
in late years by several writers, among whom Wurm and Clemen 
deserve special consideration. Though they differ in their 
solution of the problem, they both maintain that the common 
view is untenable, especially in the light of 1 Jn. ii. 23, which 
they regard as limiting the doctrinal differences between the 
writer and his opponents to questions of Christology; and as 
demonstrating that with regard to the doctrine of the Father, 
their views must have been identical, or at least divided by no 
serious difference of opinion. This would, of course, exclude 
Cerinthianism, as defined by Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. τ. xxvi. 1, where 
the Creator of the world is described as wirtus guaedam ualde 
separata et distans ab ea principalttate quae est super universa et 
ignorans eum qui est super omnia Deum. Wurm finds in this 
verse convincing support for his view of the purely Jewish 
character of the opponent’s teaching. Clemen draws from it 
and the preceding verse the conclusion that the writer sees the 
most serious error of his opponents in their denial that the 
historical Jesus is the Christ in the Johannine sense of that term, 
7.6. the pre-existent Son of God, who alone can reveal the Father 
to men. But they both agree that the position of Cerinthus is 
excluded. They certainly have done good service in drawing 
attention to the importance of the bearing of 1 Jn. 11. 23 on the 
subject, even if further consideration may suggest that the 
conclusion which they have drawn is not inevitable. 


One or Many? 


Before examining in greater detail the character of the views 
held by the false teachers, it may be well to consider whether the 
writer has in view the opinions of one party only in all the 
sections in which he denounces false teaching, or whether he is 
combating different enemies in different passages. The unity of 
the false teaching is assumed by Wurm and by Clemen, and is 
accepted by perhaps the majority of writers on the subject. In 
one sense this is probably true. The writer does not attack the 
Christological opinions of two or more definite parties in chs. 11.» 
iv., and v. respectively, nor does he denounce the Christology of 
one party and the ethical shortcomings of another. The views 
which the writer’s statements justify us in attributing to his 
opponents are not necessarily inconsistent. ‘They might all have 
been held by the same party. But they do not form a complete 
system. They might have been held in conjunction with other 
opinions of the most diverse characters. The work of recon- 


Χ] THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [ὃ 5. 


struction is always fascinating. But we have to remember how 
few of the necessary bricks are supplied to us, and how large 
a proportion of the building material we have to fashion for 
ourselves. We are bound, therefore, to consider carefully any 
hints which the writer himself gives us as to whether he has one 
or many opponents to meet, and whether he regards them as 
confined within one fold. 

The expressions which he uses certainly suggest variety. 
He tells us that the popular expectation is being fulfilled, though 
not exactly in the way in which people were looking for it. The 
saying, ‘Antichrist cometh,” is finding its fulfilment in the 
many Antichrists who have come to be (ii. 18). This hardly 
suggests one leader and many likeminded followers, even if the 
various sections have all separated themselves off from the true 
body (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν). The readers are reminded that every 
lie (πᾶν ψεῦδος) shows the characteristic of being derived from 
some source other than the truth. The Antichrist is charac- 
terized by his denial that Jesus is the Christ. But every one 
that denies Him to be the pre-existent Son of God is cut off from 
all true knowledge of the Father (ii. 23). This statement is 
made with reference to those who lead astray (περὶ τῶν πλανώντων 
ὑμᾶς). The same variety of error may be traced in ch. iv. The 
readers are warned not to give credence to every spiritual 
utterance. The many spirits must be tested, because many 
false prophets have gone out into the world (iv. 1). Every 
spirit which denies Jesus is “not of God.” This denial is the 
mark of Antichrist, who is already working in the world in the 
doings of his many subordinates. It is only in the fifth chapter 
that the writer seems to deal more exclusively with one particular 
form of error, the denial that Jesus who is the Son of God 
(οὗτος) came by blood as well as by water, ze. that both His 
sufferings and His death were essential parts of His Messianic 
work of salvation. This passage should not be allowed to 
outweigh the impression left by the earlier chapters, that varieties 
of false teaching are in the writer’s mind in most of what he has 
to say. And even in the fifth chapter most of the expressions 
used leave the same impression. ‘Throughout he tries to fortify 
his readers by calling to their remembrance a few fundamental 
truths which will safeguard them from the attacks of all the 
varied dangers which threaten their faith, even if by way of 
illustration he refers more particularly to one attack which they 
had lately victoriously repelled.” Truth is one, error is manifold, 
is the burden of his message throughout. And error which is 
manifold threatens in more forms than one. 

Thus, if we may consider first the passages in which doctrinal 
errors are denounced apart from those which deal with moral 


§ 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xli 


dangers, the general impression left by these passages and by 
many individual expressions which occur in them, leads to the 
conclusion that the Epistle is directed against various forms of 
teaching. The writer sums up the different tendencies in them 
which seem to him most dangerous, and most characteristic of 
the times. He sets out clearly the corresponding truths which 
in his opinion will prove to be their safest antidote. At the 
same time his writing may have been occasioned by one special 
type of false teaching, or one special incident in the history of 
his Church in connection with it. 

With this general caution in view it will be well to consider 
next how far various types of teaching are possibly reflected in 
the Epistle. 


(a) Judaism. 


If one single enemy is in view, it cannot, of course, be the 
Jews who have never accepted Christianity. Those of whom 
the writer is thinking first are men who “have gone out from 
us.” The phrases used, in spite of the words “they were not of 
us,” point to a definite secession of men who called themselves 
Christians and were recognized as such. They cannot refer to a 
sharper division between Jews and Christians who had hitherto 
been on more friendly terms. But this obvious fact does not 
necessarily exclude all reference in the Epistle to non-Christian 
Jews. The writer’s object is clear. It is to keep his readers in 
the right path, which some of their former companions have 
been persuaded to leave. He must protect those who remain 
from all the dangers which threaten most seriously. And his 
insistence on the confession that Jesus is the Messiah makes it 
probable, if not certain, that the Jewish controversy was 
prominent among the dangers which threatened most loudly. 
The Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem must, of 
course, have affected most profoundly the relations of Judaism 
to Christianity. And the effect must have become manifest very 
soon after the taking of the Holy City. It not only embittered 
the hatred between Jews and Christians, which was often acute 
enough before, but it placed Jewish Christians who had not 
broken with their national hopes and aspirations in an almost 
desperate position. They had still perhaps hoped against hope 
for the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah by the majority of 
their nation. All such hopes had now been dashed to the 
ground. The Lord had not returned to save His people and 
nation, as they had hoped even to the last. And Christians had 
not been slow to point to the fate of Jerusalem as God’s punish- 
ment on the nation for their rejection of the Christ. Jewish 
Christians could no longer expect anything but the bitterest 


xlii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [3 5. 


hatred from the members of their own nation with whom they 
had hoped for reunion. Their Lord had delayed His promised 
return. And many were ready to ask in scorn, “Where is 
the promise of His coming?” It is hardly surprising if their 
Jewish brethren succeeded in persuading some at least among 
them that they had been mistaken in supposing that Jesus of 
Nazareth was the Messiah of their nation. And if some openly 
cast in their lot with their own nation, others who still remained 
faithful may have been sorely tempted to accept the view that 
Jesus was indeed a prophet, sent by God and endowed by Him 
with higher powers, but not the Deliverer of the nation, and not 
the unique Son of God, with whom the writer and his fellow 
Christians identified Him. Such a danger threatened primarily, 
of course, only Jewish Christians, but it affected the whole body. 
For it was an essential part of the Christian creed as they appre- 
hended it that salvation is of the Jews. The Jewish controversy 
was prominent throughout the first half of the second century. 
It may have reached its height about the time of Barcochba’s 
rebellion. But it must have entered upon an acute stage within 
a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem. It must have been a 
serious danger at any period to which it is possible to assign the 
date of our Epistle. 

In this connection it is natural to take into account the 
evidence of the Fourth Gospel. It is hardly necessary to restate 
at any great length the obvious fact that the needs of the Jewish 
controversy are a dominant factor in the Evangelist’s choice of 
subject-matter and method of presentation. His hostility to his 
own nation, or rather to those who in his opinion falsely repre- 
sented it and had proved unfaithful to its true vocation, is one 
of the most prominent characteristics of his work. In the 
Epistle it is far less prominent, but it is difficult to discover any 
real difference in the situations which the Gospel and the Epistle 
presuppose in this respect. 

On the other hand, it is unsafe to deduce the Jewish character 
of the false teaching denounced from the words of ch. 11. 22f, 
πᾶς ὃ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει K.T.A.. aS Wurm has 
done. He draws the following conclusions from the passage. 
(1) The false teachers themselves are not conscious of holding 
any views of God different from those of the faithful. (2) There 
was, in fact, no such difference in their teaching except such as 
was involved in the denial of the Son, the Revealer of the 
Father. The last statement is rather vague. It would admit of 
considerable differences of view as to the nature of the Father. 
And the first statement does not necessarily follow from the 
verses which are supposed to establish it. It is true, as Wurm 
and Clemen have pointed out, that the author states the fact 


8 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xliii 


that the false teachers ‘‘have not the Father” as a consequence 
of their Christology. He could hardly have written the words 
unless these teachers actually claimed to “have the Father.” 
But it does not follow that they claimed the possession in the 
same sense as orthodox Christians claimed it. And the whole 
passage loses in point unless there actually were real differences 
of view. The words can no doubt be interpreted of Jews whose 
conception of God was not materially different from that of 
Christians. But they are equally applicable, and they have far 
more point, if the writer has in view types of Gnostic thought, in 
which a claim was made to superior knowledge of the unknown 
Father imparted to a few spiritual natures, and unattainable by 
the average Christian. Of such teaching the views attributed to 
Cerinthus by Irenaeus may, at any rate, serve as an illustration, 
Post baptismum descendisse tn eum ab-ea principalitate quae est 
super omnia Christum figura columbae, et tunc annunciasse 
incognitum patrem. We compare the Greek of Epiphanius, 
ἀποκαλύψαι αὐτῷ καὶ Ov αὐτοῦ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἄγνωστον πατέρα. 
Writers like Clemen and Wurm have assumed, perhaps too 
readily, that one possible interpretation of the passage is the 
only possible explanation. 


(b) Gnosticism. 


The connection of the Epistle with Gnostic ideas is quite 
apparent. There is, of course, no more necessity to interpret the 
phrase 6 λέγων ὅτι ἔγνωκα αὐτόν as presupposing any definite form 
of Gnosticism unknown before the second century, than there is 
to do so in the case of the Pauline 7 γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, or εἴ τις 
ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεὸν οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Though σπέρμα may be 
the terminus technicus of Gnosis, our author’s doctrine of yevvy- 
θῆναι ἐκ θεοῦ will explain its use in iii. 9, however we may 
interpret the meaning of σπέρμα in the phrase (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν 
αὐτῷ μένει). A reference to the system of Basilides is far from 
being the only possible explanation (Pfleid. ii. 414). But 
Gnostic ideas are clearly a serious menace to the readers. The 
essence of the writer’s ἀγγελία is that God is light, and the 
following reiteration of this in negative form may well be aimed 
at the view that the Father of all is unknowable, or that what 
can be known of Him is revealed exclusively to a few (σκοτία ἐν 
αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, cf. οἴδατε πάντες), unless, indeed, σκοτία 
must be taken in an ethical sense, as in what follows (there can 
be no fellowship with God, who is all light, for those who fail to 
obey His ἐντολαί). The condemnation of those who say that 
they ‘‘have not sin” points in the same direction. The use of 
the first person plural shows that the danger is regarded as 


xliv THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [3 5. 


‘ imminent, if not actually present among the members of the 
community. The intellectual claims of the “illuminati” are met 
by insistence on the duty of love, and the obligations which it 
involves. And the confession demanded of “ Jesus Christ come 
in the flesh” is the writer’s protest against the Gnostic doctrine 
of the impossibility of any real and complete union between 
the spiritual seed and that which is flesh (cf. Jn. i. 14). The 
writer’s own sympathy with many Gnostic ideas is well known. 
Perhaps his greatest service, not only to his own generation but 
to all times, is his power “of absorbing into Christianity the 
great spiritual tendencies of his age,” thus “disarming their 
possible antagonism for his own age” and perpetuating their 
influence in subsequent ages. 


(c) Docetism. 


The connection of this Epistle and 2 Jn. with Docetism has 
been recognized from early times. Cf. Polycarp, vil., πᾶς yap ὃς 
av μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός 
ἐστιν : Tertullian, De carne Christi, xxiv.; Dion. Alex. ap. Eus. 
H, 15. vii. 25. 19, ταῦτα yap (1 Jn. i. 2, 3) προανακρούεται, διατεινό- 
μενος, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐδήλωσεν, πρὸς τοὺς οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ φάσκοντας 
ἐληλυθέναι τὸν κύριον. And the same view has found favour 
down to the present time. It is to be found in the Religions- 
geschichtliche Volksbicher. Cf. Schmiedel, 5307, p. 29, 
**Concerning Jesus these opponents of the writer taught that 
He is not the Christ (ii. 22). Here, too, we recognize again 
the assertion of the Gnostics, that Jesus is only the man with 
whom the Christ who came down from heaven was united for a 
time, and only in some loose kind of connection” (zur lose ; 
cf. DVE, p. 116, nur aiisserlich). This is seen more clearly 
in iv. 2(DVE). They denied that Jesus Christ came in flesh ; 
an expression directed equally against the other view of the 
Gnostics, that “He had a body only in appearance.” Cf. 
Encycl. Bibl, s.v. John, son of Zebedee, 57, “‘ More precisely the 
false teachers disclose themselves to be Docetics.” It is, how- 
ever, unfortunate that the term ‘‘ Docetism” has both a wider 
and a narrower signification. It can be used in a more popular 
sense to characterize all teaching which denied the reality of the 
Incarnation, and therefore the reality and completeness of the 
Lord’s humanity. It may also be used more precisely of teaching 
which assigned to the Lord a merely phantasmal body, maintain- 
ing that He had a human body, of flesh and blood, only in 
appearance. The expressions used by Polycarp do not neces- 
sarily go beyond the wider and more popular usage. They 
contain no certain reference to Docetism in the stricter sense 


8 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xlv 


of the term. And the language of the Johannine Epistles does 
not necessarily presuppose the more precise Docetism. A 
comparison of the language of Ignatius makes this quite clear. 
Cf. Ign. ad Smyrn. 11. καὶ ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν, ὡς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησεν 
ἑαυτόν. οὐχ ὥσπερ ἄπιστοί τινες λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπον- 
θέναι, αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες, καὶ καθὼς φρονοῦσιν καὶ συμβήσεται 
αὐτοῖς, οὖσιν ἀσωμάτοις καὶ δαιμονικοῖς: ad Trall. x, εἰ δὲ... 
λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν πεπονθέναι αὐτόν, αὐτοὶ ὄντες τὸ δοκεῖν, ἐγὼ τί 
δέδεμαι; The watchword “Jesus Christ come in flesh ” held good 
against both these forms of teaching, and the former naturally 
led to the latter. All Gnostic insistence on the incompatibility 
of flesh and spirit led in the same direction. But there is 
nothing in our Epistles which proves the existence of the 
stricter Docetism to which the letters of Ignatius bear witness. 
The false teachers are still apparently concerned with the earlier 
stage of the problem, the relation between the real man Jesus of 
Nazareth and the higher power with which He was brought into 
temporary connection. 


(d) Cerinthianism. 


We have seen, if the suggested interpretation of the Christo- 
logical passages is in the main correct, that the author is trying 
to strengthen his readers’ defences against dangers which threaten 
from more than one quarter. As the Epistle proceeds, however, 
one particular danger becomes more prominent, and the passage 
in ch. v. contains clearer reference to one definite form of error 
than is probably to be found in the earlier chapters. Since the 
days when Polycarp told the story of John, the disciple of the 
Lord, and Cerinthus in the Baths of Ephesus, the view has been 
commonly held that the Johannine Epistles, if not the Gospel 
as well (cf. Jerome, J” /oann.), were directed, at any rate in 
part, again the heresy of Cerinthus. This view has been 
seriously challenged by many writers. The grounds on which 
Wurm and Clemen have declared against it have been already 
considered. If the statements of ii. 23f. do not exclude the 
teaching of Cerinthus about the unknown Father, and the 
creation of the world (xox a primo Deo factum esse mundum 
docuit sed a uirtute guadam ualde separata ab ea principalitate 
guae est super untversa et ignorante eum gui est super omnia 
Deum), the more definite references of ch. v. (especially οὐκ 
ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι) are certainly 
more easily explained in connection with the teaching of 
Cerinthus, as recorded by Irenaeus (e¢ post baptismum descendisse 
in eum ab ea principalitate quae est super omnia Christum figura 
columbae, et tunc annunciasse incognitum patrem, et uirtutes per- 


xlvi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [ὃ 5 


fecisse in fine autem revolasse tterum Christum de Iesu, et Iesum 
passum esse et resurrextisse, Christum autem impassibilem perseve- 
rasse, extstentem spiritalem), than by any other known system. 
The writer is denouncing the view that the passion was no 


_essential part of the Messianic work of salvation. While they 


admitted that His baptism by John was a real mark of His 
Messianic career, a means by which He was fitted to carry out 
His work for men, the opponents refused to see a similar mark 
in the Crucifixion. He came by water but not by blood. This 
corresponds admirably with what Irenaeus tells of Cerinthus, 
and the reference to Cerinthianism is strongly maintained by 
Zahn (Linlettung, sec. 70), and also by writers of a different 
school, as Knopf (WVachapostol. Zeit. p. 328 ff.). So far as 
concerns the type of teaching which is referred to, there can be 
little doubt that it is the most probable view. But as the exact 
tenets of Cerinthus are a matter of dispute, it may be well to 
consider the accounts of it which we possess in greater detail. 

Our chief authorities for the views of Cerinthus are Irenaeus 
and Hippolytus. As usual the contents of Hippolytus’ Syxtagma 
must be deduced, and in part conjectured, from the writings of 
Epiphanius, Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian. The fRefutatio 
of (?) Hippolytus gives us hardly anything beyond material for 
reconstructing the original Greek of Irenaeus (Hipp. Phzlos. 
vii. 33). And as usual the Epiphanian account affords an 
interesting field for conjecture, where his statements cannot be 
checked by the other two writers who used the Sya¢agma, and 
are not derived from Irenaeus. 

The Syxtagma of Hippolytus must have contained at least 
the following information: (1) Cerinthus was the successor of 
Carpocrates. (2) His teaching resembled that of his predecessor as 
regards (a) The person of Christ. He was the son of Joseph and 
Mary. Philaster, Cerinthus successit huius errori et stmilitudini 
uanitatis docens de generatione Saluatoris; ps.-Tert. Szmitlia 
docens, Christum ex semine Loseph natum proponit, hominem 
illum tantummodo sine diuinttate contendens ; Epiph. τὰ toa τῷ 
προειρημένῳ εἰς TOV Χριστὸν συκοφαντήσας ἐξηγεῖται Kal οὗτος ἐκ 
Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Χριστὸν γεγενῆσθαι. (ὁ) The 
creation of the world. The world was made by angels. Cf. 
Phil. degue creatura angelorum; ps.-Tert. nam et ipse 
mundum institutum esse ab angelis (which Hilgenfeld has rightly 
restored for z//ts); Epiph. καὶ τὸν κόσμον ὁμοίως ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων 
γεγενῆσθαι. 

His teaching differed from that of Carpocrates in its more 
sympathetic attitude towards Judaism. Cf. Phil. zz mxudllo 
discordans ab illo eo nist quia ex parte solum legi consentit quod 
a Deo data sit, which Lipsius rightly restores in Greek, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν 


8 δ.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xlvii 


τούτῳ μόνον ἐν τῷ ὁμολογεῖν ἀπὸ μέρους τὸν νόμον, ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ 
δίδοται. Epiph. ἐν τῷ προσέχειν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαισμῷ ἀπὸ μέρους. The 
Syntagma would seem also to have stated that Cerinthus regarded 
the God of the Jews as an angel, and probably as one of the 
κοσμοποιοὶ ἄγγελοι, by one of whom the Law was given to Israel. 
Cf. ps.-Tert. zpsam quogue legem ab angelis datam perhibens, 
Ludaeorum Deum non Dominum sed angelum promens ; Epiph. 
φάσκει δὲ οὗτος τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων 
δεδόσθαι, καὶ τὸν δεδωκότα νόμον ἕνα εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν 
κόσμον πεποιηκότων, in the light of which we must interpret the 
sentence of Philaster, unintelligible as it stands, et ipsum Deum 
Ludaeorum eum esse aestimat qui legem dedit filits Israel. 

From this point onwards there is nothing more to be 
gathered from pseud.-Tertullian. Philaster adds a number of 
further details which emphasize the Judaizing character of 
Cerinthus’ teaching and views. He tells us that he insisted on 
circumcision (cf. Epiph. ch. v. περιετμήθη ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς περιτμήθητι καὶ 
αὐτός), and on the keeping of the Sabbath; and that he taught 
that Christ had not yet risen from the dead, but would rise 
hereafter (Christum nondum surrexisse a mortuis sed resurrec- 
turum annuntiat”; cf. Epiph. ch. vi. Χριστὸν πεπονθέναι καὶ 
ἐσταυρῶσθαι, μήπω δὲ ἐγηγέρθαι, μέλλειν δὲ ἀνίστασθαι ὅταν ἣ 
καθόλου γένηται νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις); that he rejected the authority 
of 5. Paul (cf. Epiph. ch. v. τὸν Παῦλον ἀθετοῦσι) ; that he paid 
honour to the traitor Judas; that he acknowledged the Gospel 
according to S. Matthew only (cf. Epiph. ch. ν. χρῶνται yap τῷ κατὰ 
Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ μέρους), rejecting the other three Gospels 
and the Acts; that he blasphemes the blessed Martyrs; and that 
he was the mover of the sedition against the Apostles, insisting 
on the circumcision of all converts ; and that the Apostolic decree 
was promulgated against the movement instigated by him 
(cf. Epiph. ch. iii, who also adds to his crimes the opposition 
to 5. Paul on his last visit to Jerusalem). The agreements 
between Epiphanius and Philaster are sufficiently marked to 
justify the view that Hippolytus in his Sytagma assigned some 
such Judaizing position to Cerinthus, though the attribution of 
many of the same tenets to “Ebion,” by Hippolytus and by 
Irenaeus, raises doubts as to the accuracy of the details. The 
Syntagma is in substantial agreement with Irenaeus as to 
Cerinthus’ views about the person of Christ and the creation 
of the world by an inferior power. The Judaizing views attributed 
to him are not inconsistent with anything in Irenaeus’ account. 
The only statement that really conflicts with his account is that 
concerning the resurrection of Christ. But we have found 
nothing so far to connect the teaching about the Baptism and 
Passion, given by Irenaeus, which offers the most striking resem- 


xl viii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 5. 


blances to that denounced in ch. v. of the Epistle, with the 
earlier Hippolytean treatise. Lipsius however, (p. 118), finds 
reasons for doing so in that part of the Epiphanian account 
which is derived mainly from Irenaeus (i. 21, cf. Hipp. Phzlos. 
vii. 33). When all the definitely Irenaean matter is taken away, 
the remainder may be of the nature of explanatory additions 
made by Epiphanius himself; and this view is maintained by 
Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, p. 413). But 
Lipsius thinks that it must be derived from another source. 
For the sake of clearness it will be best to give the passage in 
full. 


Lipiphanius. 


3 39 ἈΝ a ’ x #¥ ’ A , wn 

οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης καὶ ἄνωθεν δυνάμεως TOV κόσμον γεγενῆσθαι, 
ἄνωθεν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἄνω θεοῦ μετὰ τὸ ἁδρυνθῆναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐκ 
σπέρματος Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας γεγεννημένον κατεληλυθέναι τὸν 
Χριστὸν εἰς αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς 
ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ καὶ ἀποκαλύψαι αὐτῷ καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν 

t « c 
ΕΣ / ἈΝ Ν lal > Ν > ε ’΄ 5 δ... ἃς 
ἄγνωστον πατέρα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπειδὴ ἦλθεν ἣ δύναμις εἰς αὐτὸν 
Ν » 3 , Ν 3 a » Ν 2 \ 
ἄνωθεν δυνάμεις ἐπιτετελεκέναι, Kal αὐτοῦ πεπονθότος τὸ ἐλθὸν 
» 5 A 3 Ν a? a + /, Ν Ν 3 A Ν 
ἄνωθεν ἀναπτῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄνω, πεπονθότα δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ 
πάλιν ἐγηγερμένον, Χριστὸν δὲ τὸν ἄνωθεν ἐλθόντα εἰς αὐτὸν ἀπαθῆ 
ἀν απτάντα, ὅ ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ κατελθὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς, καὶ οὐ τὸν 
Ἰησοῦν εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν. 


Irenaeus (cf. Hipp. vit. 53). 


οὐχ ὑπὸ TOD πρώτου θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον, GAN ὑπὸ δυνάμεως 
τινὸς κεχωρισμένης καὶ ἀπεχούσης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα ἐξουσίας 
(Ὁ αὐθεντίας, principalitate) καὶ ἀγνοούσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα θεόν, τὸν δὲ 
Ἰησοῦν ὑπέθετο μὴ ἐκ παρθένου γεγενῆσθαι (¢mpossibile enim hoc et 
24751477] est) γεγονέναι δὲ αὐτὸν ἐξ ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας υἱὸν ὁμοίως τοῖς 
λοιποῖς ἅ ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποις καὶ δικαιότερον γεγονέναι [καὶ φρονιμώτερον] 
καὶ σοφώτερον, καὶ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα κατελθεῖν εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς 
ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας, τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς καὶ τότε κηρύξαι 
τὸν ἄγνωστον πατέρα, καὶ δυνάμεις ἐπιτελέσαι, πρὸς δὲ τῷ τέλει 
ἀποστῆναι τὸν Χριστὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν πεπονθέναι 
καὶ ἐγηγέρθαι, τὸν δὲ Χριστὸν ἀπαθῆ διαμεμενηκέναι πνευματικὸν 
ὑπάρχοντα. 

Apart from particular expressions, some of which find 
parallels in his account of _Carpocrates (cf. Hlaer. XXVil. 2, τῆς 
ἄνω δυνάμεως, ἀπεστάλθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς εἰς THY αὐτοῦ ψυχὴν 
δυνάμεις), the non-Irenaean matter in Epiphanius is confined to 
the identification of the Christ who descended on Jesus with 
the Holy Spirit, the mention of the Jordan, the phrase τὸ ἐλθὸν 
ἄνωθεν (6 ἄνωθεν ἐλθών), and the denial that Jesus is the Christ. 


§ 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xlix 


There is nothing here that Epiphanius could not have added 
by way of explanation and amplification. At the same time 
there is no obvious reason for the mention of the Spirit, unless 
Epiphanius is combining two accounts, one of which spoke of 
Christ and the other of the Holy Spirit as the power who 
descended on Jesus. It is noticeable that in Lipsius’ attempted 
reconstruction of the Syuztagma (μετὰ δὲ ἁδρυνθῆναι τὸν Χριστὸν 
ἐληλυθέναι εἰς αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς καὶ 
ἀποκαλύψαι αὐτῷ καὶ Ov αὐτοῦ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν ἄνω θεόν, τὸν 
δὲ Χριστὸν ἐπειδὴ ἦλθεν εἰς αὐτὸν ἄνωθεν δύναμις δυνάμεις 
ἐπιτετελεκέναι καὶ αὐτοῦ πεπονθότος τὸ κατελθὸν ἀναπτῆναι ἄνω) 
most of the matter and much of the language is to be found in 
Irenaeus. But on the whole it seems probable that the Hippoly- 
tean account did contain a statement that a higher power 
(? the Holy Spirit) came upon Jesus (? the Christ) and left Him 
before the Passion. And if the original teaching of Cerinthus 
was that the Spirit descended on Jesus at the Baptism, there is 
a special significance in the language of the Epistle, τὸ πνεῦμα 
ἐστὶ τὸ μαρτυροῦν. The place of the Spirit, the writer would 
say, was to bear witness, not to perform the higher function 
which some had attributed to Him. We may perhaps compare 
the language of the Prologue to the Gospel, where the over- 
estimation of the Baptist, whom possibly some had identified 
with the Messiah, and almost certainly many had extolled at 
the expense of Jesus of Nazareth, is similarly set aside (οὐκ ἦν 
ἐκεῖνος TO φῶς GAN iva μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός). And if this was 
the original teaching of Cerinthus, it would not be inconsistent 
with the stress laid on the denial that Jesus is the Christ. Even if 
he admitted that the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism raised 
Him to the Messianic office (more probably he would regard 
it as setting Him apart for a prophet), he certainly would not 
allow the identification of Jesus from his birth with the Christ, 
in the Johannine sense of the term, the pre-existent Son of 
God. : 
We may then safely conclude that though other forms of 
false teaching are dealt with in the Epistles,'the writer has 
specially in view the teaching of some opponent whose views 
were, at any rate, very similar to those of Cerinthus, so far as we 
can now determine them. He seems to have combined those 
Gnostic and Judaizing tendencies which the writer regarded as 
most dangerous. And the particular views which we have good 
grounds for attributing to him, whether they defined the relation 
of Jesus to the Christ, or that of the Spirit to Christ (z.e. Jesus), 
offer the most satisfactory explanation of the language of the 
fifth chapter of the First Epistle. 


d 


5 Ι͂ 


1 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [§ 5. 


Ethical Errors. 


It is, of course, clear that the writer of these Epistles is 
combating errors of life and conduct as well as of doctrine. 
And it is almost a matter of certainty that he has in view the 
same opponents in what he says on both subjects. He could 
hardly have laid such stress on the necessary connection between 
true belief and right practice, if the errors of conduct which he 
denounces were conspicuously absent from the lives of those 
whose teaching he condemns. This has been clearly stated 
by Wurm, though he goes too far in maintaining that the praise 
which the writer bestows on his readers excludes the possibility 
that his warnings against certain practical errors could have 
special reference to them. It was clearly one of the chief 
dangers of the situation, as the writer viewed it, that those who 
had “gone out” had left many sympathizers behind, and many 
more who hardly knew how to make up their minds. There 
are, however, no grounds for supposing that in those passages 
which deal with moral shortcomings the writer has an altogether 
different party of opponents in view. As in the case of the 
Christological errors, he is content to point out the chief 
tendencies in which he foresees most danger. Again, his 
words have a wider reference than the one particular body of 
opponents, but he writes with the memory fresh in his mind 
of the recent withdrawal of a particular party from his Church, 
and their withdrawal was most probably the occasion of the 
First Epistle. 

There is no evidence that this party had condoned, or been 
guilty of, the grosser sins of the flesh. That is not the most 
natural interpretation of the passage on which such a view has 
generally been based (ii. τό). “ΒΥ ἐπιθυμία τὴς σαρκός the 
writer seems to mean all desires which come to the natural man 
as yet untouched by the influence of the Spirit of God. The 
Johannine usage of the word σάρξ suggests this wider reference, 
by which the expressions used are not restricted to the fleshly sins. 

But though the Epistle offers no traces of Antinomianism, 
it is clear that the opponents claimed that knowlege of God, 
fellowship with God, and love for God are compatible with 
disregard of at least some of the requirements of the Christian 
code. The words ὃ λέγων ὅτι ἔγνωκα αὐτὸν Kat τὰς ἐντολὰς 
αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν ψεύστης ἐστίν are certainly directed against the 
false teachers, even if the writer is not thinking of them in 
i. 6, 8, ro. And in the following verse (ii. 5) the emphasis 
on ἀληθῶς (ἐν τούτῳ ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται) suggests the 
same thought. They must have claimed to know God as 
ordinary Christians could not know Him, without recognizing 


8 δ.] THE FALSE TEACHERS hi 


the obligation of complete obedience to the whole of His 
commands, or of living a life in conscious imitation of the 
life of the Master (ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς 
οὕτως περιπατεῖν). The following section (ii. 7 ff.) on the “ new 
command,” however the ‘‘ old” and the “new” are to be inter- 
preted, shows that their special failure was a want of recognition ./ 
in everyday life of the primary Christian duty, love of the 
brethren. The full significance of the passage is perhaps most 
apparent if we assume that the writer claims that the command 
to love the brethren is contained implicitly in the moral require- 
ments of the Old Testament, recognized by himself and his 
opponents alike as having authority, but that it was placed in 
a wholly new light in the teaching and example of the Christ, 
who said ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς 
ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς (Jn. ΧΙΠ. 34); and that he makes the claim in 
opposition to a denial on the part of the false teachers that 
this was part of the requirements of God. They must have 
been unwilling to recognize that the ordinary and less en- 
lightened members of the community had any real claims upon 
them. They may have preferred to stand well with the more 
intelligent Jews and heathen in whose midst they lived (μὴ 
ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον), Cf. 11. 15, τό. 

The writer returns to the subject in ch. iii, to which ii. 29 
leads up. As Weiss has pointed out, ill. 4 would be a feeble 
argument against Antinomianism. To meet that he must have 
exchanged his subject and predicate. But the passage is signifi- 
cant nevertheless. It most naturally suggests that the opponents 
condemned “lawlessness,” but failed to see that all sin is lawless, 
being disobedience to the Divine law, which has been made 
known to men in various ways. The duty of obedience to 
certain definite precepts they recognized, but not the sinfulness 
of all falling short of the ideal of human life realized in the life 
of the Son of Man on earth. Again all becomes clear if we 
may suppose that their conduct was regulated by the moral 
precepts of the Old Testament rather than by the more exacting 
requirements of the “Adyos αὐτοῦ" which had now been put 
before men. In ver. 7 the words μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς may 
contain a more definite allusion to particular opponents. The 
doing of righteousness constitutes the only claim to be righteous, 
and again “He” has set the standard of doing (καθὼς ἐκεῖνος 
ἔστιν δίκαιος). The indifference of action as compared with 
other supposed qualifications, such as, for instance, descent from 
Abraham, or the possession of the “" pneumatic” seed, is clearly 
part of the opponents’ creed. They must have claimed to be 
δίκαιοι without admitting the necessity of ‘‘ doing the works.” 

Thus on the practical as well as on the theoretical side we 


lii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 6. 


seem to trace the same mixture of Jewish and Gnostic ideas 
which must have formed the most pressing dangers to the 
moral and spiritual life of a Christian community towards the 
end of the first century or at the beginning of the second, 
or perhaps even later. Such matters really afford very little 
material for accurate dating. No account has been taken of 
the Chiliastic views attributed to Cerinthus by Caius of Rome 
and others. If the attribution is correct, they are not incon- 
sistent with his Judaizing position. The implied suggestions of 
immorality are not supported by any tangible evidence. In all 
other respects the teaching attributed to Cerinthus by the more 
trustworthy heresiologists affords a typical example of the errors 
which are condemned in the Johannine Epistles. 


8 6. Lir—ERARY HIsToRY. 


In tracing the history of books and documents it is important 
to emphasize the difference between echoes, influences, direct 
use and direct quotation, with or without indication of author- 
ship. Professor Bacon has rightly called attention to this in his 
recent work on the Johannine Problem. The distinction has 
always been recognized by competent scholars in dealing with 
the Books of the New Testament, though they have held very 
different opinions as to what may be reasonably concluded from 
the facts of usage. The undoubted attribution of the Epistles to 
John by name is not found in extant works till the last quarter 
of the second century. The use of them can, however, be traced 
at a much earlier date. The following list of “echoes and 
influences ” of the Epistles which have been found in the writings 
of the second century and early decades of the third, are not 
all equally certain, but at least deserve consideration. 


Clem. Rom. xlix. 5. ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ I iv. 18. ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ τετε- 
ἐτελειώθησαν πάντες οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ λείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. 
θεοῦ. 

Clem. 1. 3. ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ἐν ἀγάπῃ τελειω- 
θέντες. 


The verbal similarity is interesting, but the meaning is 
different at least in the first passage. The 49th chapter has 
clearer reminiscences of 1 Co. xiii. The opening sentence, 6 ἔχων 
ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ ποιησάτω τὰ Tod Χριστοῦ παραγγέλματα, suggests 
more clearly the teaching of the Johannine Epistles. But no 
weight can be attached to this coincidence of language. 


Polycarp, ad Phil. c. vii. πᾶς γὰρ I iv. 2. πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ 
ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ 
σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν. τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν, καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὁ μὴ 


§ 6.] LITERARY HISTORY li 


καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ 
σταυροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν. ἔστιν" καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντίχρισ- 
του, ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται. 

I ii. 8. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ 
διαβόλου ἐστίν. 

Iii, 18. καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἀντί- 
χριστος ἔρχεται καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι 
πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν. 

Iii. 22. Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ 
ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ 
Χριστός ; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ 
ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν. 

11 7. πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθαν εἰς τὸν 
κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί" οὗτός ἐστιν 
ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος. 


The importance of this passage justifies a full presentation of 
the evidence. The connection between the passage in Polycarp 
and 1 Jn. iv. 2, or 2 Jn. 7, is obvious. No one who has read 
the Johannine Epistles and the Epistle of Polycarp can doubt on 
which side lies the probability of originality. And the way in 
which Polycarp seems to use the language and thoughts of the 
Johannine Epistles is closely parallel to his use throughout his 
Epistle of the language and contents of other books of the New 
Testament. The obvious connection of the first sentence with 
the language of S. John’s Epistles makes it natural to see in the 
second, which contains the Johannine phrase ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου 
ἐστίν, an echo of the teaching of the First Epistle of 5. John on 
the Passion as being, equally with the Baptism, characteristic of 
the Lord’s Messianic work (οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος Kal 
αἵματος). If so, the case for the connection with the First Epistle 
is strengthened. ‘The sentences in Polycarp give the reason for 
his appeal to the Philippians to serve the Lord with all fear and 
reverence, as the Lord Himself commanded, and the Apostles who 
preached His Gospel to them, and the Prophets who predicted 
His coming, “‘abstaining from offences and from false brethren, 
and from those who bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who 
lead foolish men astray ” (οἵτινες ἀποπλανῶσι κενοὺς ἀνθρώπους, cf. 
I Jn. 11. 26, ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς). The 
context recalls the situation of the Second Epistle (2 Jn. 1of.), the 
language and thought are more closely connected with the First. 
The passage may be said to prove the acquaintance of Polycarp 
with the teaching contained in the Epistles, or with the man who 
taught it. It establishes a very high degree of probability that 
he was acquainted with the actual Epistles. In view of it there 
would have to be very strong reasons to justify us in placing the 
Johannine Epistles later than the Epistle of Polycarp. And it 
must be remembered that his Epistle, if genuine, must be dated 


[§ 6. 


immediately after the martyrdom of Ignatius (see Polycarp, ad 
(Phil. Cc. xii). 


liv THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN 


III 12. Δημητρίῳ μεμαρτύρηται 
ὑπὸ πάντων καὶ ὑπὸ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας. 


Papias (Eus. 4. 2. iii. 50: 3). 
(ἔχαιρον). . . τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ 
κυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδομένας (sc. ἐντολάς) 


καὶ dm αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς 
ἀληθείας. 
Eus. iii. 39. 17. κέχρηται δ᾽ ὁ 


αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου 
προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. 


The use of the phrase αὐτὴ 7 ἀλήθεια by the “ Presbyter” and 
by Papias may, of course, be an accidental coincidence, but it is 
not without significance in the light of Eusebius’ statement, which 
we have not the slightest reason for discrediting. The First 
Epistle, if not the twosmaller letters, must have been known and 
valued during the first quarter of the second century. The 
evidence does not amount to actual proof, as it is, of course, 
impossible to distinguish between personal acquaintance with the 
author and his teaching, and knowledge of the actual text of the 
Epistles. The evidence does not exclude the possibility of such 
teaching being embodied in Epistles at a later date. But there 
can be little doubt as to which hypothesis is the simpler and the 


more natural. 
Didache, c. x. μνήσθητι Κύριε, τῆς Liv. 18, οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. 
ἐκκλησίας σου τοῦ ῥύσασθαι αὐτὴν ἀπὸ 
παντὸς πονηροῦ καὶ τελειῶσαι αὐτὴν 
ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου. 
τελειῶσαι ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ may be a reminiscence of the language, 
as it certainly recalls the thought, of the Epistle. 


I ii. 27. τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα---ἀληθές 
ἐστιν καὶ στιν ψεῦδος. 


Hermas, .77. iii. 1. ὅτι ὁ Κύριος ἀλη- 
θινὸς ἐν παντὶ ῥήματι, καὶ οὐδὲν παρ᾽ 
αὐτῷ ψεῦδος. 

The coincidence of language may possibly suggest a con- 
nection between the two passages, but it certainly does not 


prove it. 
Ep. to Diognetus, xi. 14. οὗτος (cf. Li. 1. ὃ ἣν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. 
8 3, οὗ χάριν ἀπέστειλε Λόγον) ὁ ἀπ᾽ 
ἀρχῆς ὁ καινὸς φανεὶς καὶ παλαιὸς 
εὑρεθείς. 


X. 2. ὁ γὰρ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 
ἠγάπησε. .. πρὸς ods ἀπέστειλε τὸν 
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ. 


3. ἐπιγνοὺς δὲ τίνος οἴει πληρωθή- 
σεσθαι χαρᾶς ἢ πῶς ἀγαπήσεις τὸν 
οὕτως προαγαπήσαντά σε; 


T iv. 9. ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ 
τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς 
τὸν κόσμον (cf. Jn. iil. 16, 17). 

I iv. 19. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς 
πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. 

Li. 4. ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ἢ πεπλη- 
ρωμένη. 


8 6.] LITERARY HISTORY lv 


The echoes of Johannine thought are obvious, and on the 
whole the similarity is greater with the Epistle than with the 
Gospel. 


Ep. Lugd. et Vienn. (Eus. V. i. I iii. 16. Ἔν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν 
10). Ἔχων δὲ τὸν παράκλητον ἐν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν 
ἑαυτῷ, τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Ζαχαρίου, 66a ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν: καὶ ἡμεῖς 
τοῦ πληρώματος τῆς ἀγάπης ἐνεδείξατο, ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς 
εὐδοκήσας ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν ψυχὰς θεῖναι. 
ἀπολογίας καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεῖναι 
ψυχήν. ἣν γὰρ καὶ ἔστιν γνήσιος 
Χριστοῦ μαθητής, ἀκολουθῶν τῷ ἀρνίῳ 
ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγῃ. 

The connection with Johannine thought and expression is 
quite unmistakable. The true following of the Lamb, as shown 
in the readiness of Veltius Epagathus to lay down (?stake) his 
life for the brethren, is almost certainly a reminiscence of the 


First Epistle. 


Irenaeus, ΠῚ. xvi. 5. “Quemadmodum Ioannes Domini 
discipulus confirmat dicens Haec autem (Jn. xx. 31)... 
Propter quod et in epistola sua sic testificatus est nobis 
Filioli, nouissima hora est (1 Jn. 11. 18, 19, 21—1in the form 
Cognoscite ergo quoniam omne mendacium extraneum est et 
non est de ueritate—z22 to Antichristus).” 

8. “Quos et Dominus nobis cauere praedixit et discipulus 
eius Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere eos praecepit dicens 
Multi seductores exierunt in hunc mundum (2 Jn. 7, 8 to 
operati estis). Et rursus in Epistola ait Multi pseudo- 
prophetae exierunt de saeculo (1 Jn. iv. 1-3 to omnis Spiritus 
qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo sed de Antichristo est). Haec 
autem similia sunt illi quod in euangelio dictum est, quoniam 
Uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Propter quod 
rursus in Epistola clamat, Omnis qui credit quia Iesus est 
Christus, ex Deo natus est, unum et eundem sciens Iesum 
Christum,” etc. 

We have now come to the age of definite quotation by name. 
Irenaeus’ use of the Epistles in this passage, the only one in 
which he makes definite quotations, is interesting. It reminds 
us of the differences of custom in quotation by the writers of the 
last quarter of the second century, and perhaps of the difference 
between what was customary in definitely theological treatises as 
opposed to letters, or apologetic writings. We should, for 
instance, be in a better position to determine Justin’s exact use 
of N.T. writings if his Sy¢agma against Heresies had been pre- 
served. The quotation is also interesting if considered in 
connection with other evidence of this period and that which 
succeeded it, as suggesting that, in some places, at any rate, the 


lvi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 6. 


first two Epistles of S. John were known and used before the 
third gained as wide a circulation. 


Clem. Alex. S¢v. 11. 15. 66. Φαίνεται δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ 
μείζονι ἐπιστολῇ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐκδιδάσκων ἐν τούτοις" 
"Edy τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς 
θάνατον, αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι μὴ πρὸς 
θάνατον" εἶπεν: “Kote γὰρ ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον" οὐ περὶ ἐκείνης 
λέγω, ti ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ τις. πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστί, καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία 
μὴ πρὸς θάνατον (1 Jn. v. τ6 f.). 

Lb. Str. iil. 4. 32. καί: ᾿Ἔὰν εἴπωμεν, φησὶν ὃ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ 
ἐπιστολῇ, ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τουτέστι μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, 
καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν. ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ φωτί, 
κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ 
καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ( Jn. 1. 61). 

LO SITS 111:. Bs 42. καὶ πᾶς ὃ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπὶ τῷ 
κυρίῳ ἁγνίζει, φησίν, ἑαυτὸν καθὼς ἐ ἐκεῖνος ἅγνός ἐστιν. 

Lb. 44. Ὃ λέγων, ἔγνωκα τὸν κύριον, καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ 
τηρῶν ψεύστης ἐστίν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν, ᾿Ιωάννης 
λέγει. 

Lb. Str. iii. 6. 45. πρῶτον μὲν τὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ᾿Ἰωάννου. 
Καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, ὅθεν ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι ἐσχάτη 
ὥρα ἐστίν. ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν᾽ εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ 
ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. 

Lb. Quis div. salv. 37. 6. θείως γε καὶ ἐπιπνόως ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης" Ὁ 
μὴ φιλῶν, φησί, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστί (1 Jn. 111. 15), 
σπέρμα τοῦ Καίν, θρέμμα τοῦ διαβόλου. 

Lb. Str. ἵν. 16. τοο. Texvia μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ γλώσσῃ 
«φησὶν» ᾿Ιωάννης τελείους εἶ εἶναι διδάσκων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 
ἐν τούτῳ γνωσόμεθα ὅ ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν (τ Jn. iii. τὸ ΕΣ ef 
δὲ a ἀγάπη ὃ θεός {τη τν τοὶ) ἀγάπη καὶ ἡ θεοσέβεια" Φόβος οὐκ 
ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, ἀλλ᾽ a τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον 
(1 Jn. iv. 18)" αὕτη ἐστὶν ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
τηρῶμεν (1 Jn. v. 3). 

Lb. Str. v. 1. 13. “Aydan δὲ ὃ θεός" ὃ τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι γνωστός 
(1 Jn. iv. 16). 

Lb. Str. iv. 18. 113. ᾿Αγάπη τοίνυν καὶ 6 θεὸς εἴρηται, ἀγαθὸς 
ὧν (1 Jn. iv. 16). 

Ib. Quis div. salv. 38. ᾿Αγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν" ἡ 
τελεία ἀγάπη ἐκβάλλει τὸν φόβον (1 Jn. iv. 18) οὐ περπερεύεται 
K.T.A. 

Clement makes full use of the First Epistle, and recognizes 
at least to. The question whether he commented on all three 
Epistles, or on two only, in his Adumbrationes, is discussed 
subsequently. 


§ 6.] LITERARY HISTORY lvii 


Muratorian Fragment. 


“Quid ergo mirum si Ioannes tam constanter singula etiam 
in epistulis suis proferat, dicens in semetipsum ‘quae uidimus 
oculis nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus nostrae palpauerunt, 
haec scripsimus uobis.’ Sic enim non solum uisorem se et! 
auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini 
per ordinem profitetur. 

“Epistola sane Judae et superscriptae? Iohannis duae in 
catholica habentur et Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem 
ipsius scripta.” 

The text is taken from Dr. Zahn’s Grundriss d. Geschichte d. 
IVT. Kanons, p. 78. It is not necessary here to go over again 
the controversy raised by the different interpretations of these 
two passages in the A/uratorianum which have been maintained 
by competent scholars. There can be no doubt that the (Greek) 
author of the document regarded the Epistles as the work of 
John the Apostle. But there is nothing to suggest that the 
Church for which he speaks (? Rome) accepted as Scripture 
more than fwo Johannine Epistles. Students can only feel 
astonishment at such statements as that of Dr. Gregory (Canon 
and Text of the New Testament, p. 132), “The way in which 
these two small Epistles of John are named seems odd,” which 
assumes a reference to the two shorter letters in the second 
paragraph quoted, without further discussion. This will be more 
fully discussed later on in connection with the other evidence 
for the circulation of only two Johannine Epistles. 

Origen, Z” Joann. v. 3 (ex Euseb. H. £. vi. 25), Τί det περὶ τοῦ 
ἀναπεσόντος ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος λέγειν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ᾿Τωάννου, ὃς εὐαγγέλιον 
ἕν καταλέλοιπεν, ὁμολογῶν δύνασθαι τοσαῦτα ποιήσειν, ἃ οὐδὲ 6 
κόσμος χωρῆσαι ἐδύνατο; ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ τὴν ᾿Αποκάλυψιν, κελευσθεὶς 
σιωπῆσαι καὶ μὴ γράψαι τὰς τῶν ἕπτα βροντῶν φωνάς, [καταλέλοιπε] 
καὶ ἐπιστολὴν πάνυ ὀλίγων στίχων, ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην, 
ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασὶ γνησίο: - εἷναι ταύτας" πλὴν οὐκ εἰσὶ στίχων 
ἀμφότεραι ἑκατόν. 

Origen makes very full use of the First Epistle. There are 
no quotations or “echoes” of the smaller Epistles. At least none 
are recorded in Ionimatzsch’s indices, or in the volumes at 
present published in the Berlin Covfus. We do not know the 
original Greek of the passage in the VIIth Homily on Joshua (8 τ) 
which Rufinus translated, ‘Addit nihilominus adhuc et Ioannes 
tuba canere per epistolas” (Lomm. xi. 63). 


Tertullian’s use of the First Epistle is full. He frequently 


1Sed et MS (acc. to Zahn the et is a later addition). 
2Su verscrictio Iohannes duas (? ἐπιγεγραμμέναι). 


viii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 6. 


quotes it byname. It is unnecessary to quote the passages here 
in full. Their evidence has been used in the Appendix on the 
Latin text of the Epistle. His use of the Second Epistle is 
doubtful, and there is no trace of the Third in his writings. 


The evidence which has been quoted above shows that the 
date of the Johannine Epistles cannot reasonably be placed 
later than the first decade of the second century. The first 
Epistle was known and valued by the generation of Papias and 
Polycarp, and it was not only towards the close of their lives 
that they became acquainted with it. So far as their origin is 
concerned, it is difficult to separate the two shorter Epistles from 
the First. They bear on their face marks of genuineness which 
can hardly be seriously questioned. ‘They deal practically with 
questions, about the limits within which hospitality should be 
shown to travelling teachers, which are known to have been 
matters of controversy in the first half of the second century, 
and which probably often called for solution some considerable 
time before that. It is almost inconceivable that any one should 
have written them ‘‘to do honour” to some “great light” of 
earlier times, or to the Apostle himself, as the Asiatic Presbyter, 
of whom Tertullian tells us, tried to do honour to S. Paul by 
writing the Acta Pauli, or as the “friends” of Solomon, perhaps 
Philo himself, in the view of the author of the Muratorian 
Fragment, thought to honour the Jewish king. No one would 
have created for the glorification of an Apostle, or even a 
Presbyter, the very dubious situation of disputed authority which 
the Third Epistle reveals. Even if his object had been rather 
to gain Apostolic or early authority for particular methods of 
treating strangers, he could hardly have done his work so badly 
as such a theory would imply. The reasons for preferring at a 
later date the view which attributes the authorship to an Elder 
as opposed to the ‘‘ Apostolic” author of the First Epistle, are 
obvious. It is almost impossible to find any serious reason to 
explain their survival except the authority and reputation of 
their real author, whoever he may have been. They go with the 
First Epistle; and in view of their contents, their preservation, 
and the traditions attached to them, we are fully justified in 
attributing their authorship to the Elder, who doubtless “lived 
on till the time of Trajan,” and whose authority and reputation 
in the province of Asia stood so high throughout the second 
century. 

The history of the reception of the three Epistles into the 
Canon of the New Testament is more difficult to trace. ‘There 
is no doubt that the First Epistle was generally accepted before 
the close of the second century. The only certain exception is 


§ 6.] LITERARY HISTORY lix 


the Canon of Edessa, where we know from the Doctrine of 
Addai that as late as the fourth century (? fifth) the statement 
that no books should be accepted as Scripture, to be read in 
church, except the Gospel (z.e. the Diatessaron), the Acts, and 
the Epistles of Paul, was retained without comment in the 
legendary account of the origins of Christianity in that quarter. 
The same Canon is found in the Syrian Canon (? ὦ 400 A.D.), 
found in Cod. Syr. 20 (saec. ix.) of the convent of S. Catharine 
on Mt. Sinai? (A. 5. Lewis, London, 1894). The chief evidence 
for the acceptance of only one Epistle is as follows. (τ) 
Eusebius’ knowledge of the use and acceptance of the Epistles in 
early times led him to place only the First Epistle among the 
ὁμολογούμενα, the two smaller Epistles being placed among 
the ἀντιλεγόμενα, γνώριμα τοῖς πολλοῖς, with the added caution, 
“whether they be by the Evangelist, or by another of the same 
name.”? (2) The statement by Origen, quoted above, that the 
authorship of the two smaller Epistles is disputed, and the fact 
that he does not seem to have quoted them, which in his case is 
perhaps significant. (3) The Canon of the Peshitta, in which 
only three Catholic Epistles find a place, a Canon which is 
frequently found in the East. But the acceptance of the “ seven- 
letter” Canon must be dealt with later on. (4) The protest of 
the scribe of the Cheltenham list (Mommsen’s Canon? 360 A.D.), 
or of his predecessor, who has added after the mention of the 
three Johannine Epistles the words “una sola,” as after that of 
the two Petrine Epistles.2 On the other hand, we have earlier 
evidence of the use of 2 John as authoritative in Africa. (5) In 
the attribution of the two smaller Epistles to the ‘ Elder,” in 
the Roman list of 382 (cf. 77S, 1900, i. 554-560), where the 
influence of Jerome is clearly to be seen, ‘“Iohannis apostoli 
epistula una alterius Iohannis presbyteri epistulae duae.” 

The evidence for the acceptance of the first two Epistles 
without the third is less clear, and not very easy to interpret. 
But it is sufficiently definite and widespread to deserve serious 
consideration. (1) We have seen how Irenaeus confuses the two 
Epistles. There is no trace of the use of the Third Epistle in 
his writings. (2) We have evidence of the use of the first two 
Epistles in Africa in Cyprian’s time. He himself frequently 
quotes the First Epistle, and the quotation of 2 Jn. 10, 11 by 
Aurelius a Chullabi (Seztentiae Episcoporum, 81, p. 459, ed. 
Hartel) vindicates for it a place in the African, at least in the 
Carthaginian, Bible of that period. Again we find no trace of 
the Third Epistle. (3) The usage of Gaul and Africa is sup- 

1 All three Epistles are, of course, absent from the Canon of Marcion. 

2 Euseb. A. £. iii. 25. 

5. Epistulae Iohannis III ir CCCL una sola (Zahn, Grundriss, p. 81). 


Ix THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 6. 


ported by that of Rome. There can be little doubt as to what 
is the natural interpretation of the language used by the author 
of the Muratorian Fragment. When he is dealing with the 
Gospels, and feels himself obliged to defend the Fourth Gospel 
against attacks which clearly had been made on it, probably by 
Caius, he quotes the Epistle in support of his view that the 
Fourth Gospel was the work of an eye-witness of the ministry, 
to prove that the author plainly declares himself not only a 
witness, but also a hearer and recorder of all the wonders of the 
Lord in order. When he comes to that in the Epistles, he makes 
the plain statement that in his Church two Epistles of John are 
received. There is nothing to suggest that he excludes the First, 
which he has already quoted elsewhere, or that he is dealing now 
only with doubtful books. Dr. Zahn’s argument! on this point 
would seem to prove too much, for it involves the consequence 
that the only books which the Roman Church at that time 
treated as undoubted Scripture were those contained in the 
restricted Canon of Edessa, Gospel(s), Acts, Pauline Epistles. 
(4) The fact that the Latin epitome by Cassiodorus, and Clement’s 
Adumbrationes on the Catholic Epistles, contain notes on the 
first two Epistles of S. John only, is significant. The evidence of 
Eusebius, who states that Clement commented on all the (seven) 
Catholic Epistles, as well as on Barnabas and the Petrine Apoc- 
alypse, which is supported by Photius, must be set against this. 
But the suspicion is at least well grounded that the general 
statement of Eusebius may be loose. On the other hand, no 
stress can be laid on Clement’s use (see above, p. lvi) of the 
phrase ἐν τῇ μείζονι ἐπιστολῇ. It is equally compatible with his 
recognition of three Epistles or of two. And later writers who 
undoubtedly accepted all seven Catholic Epistles frequently quote 
the First Epistles of Peter and John as “the Epistle” of those 
writers. 

It is difficult to estimate the exact bearing of this evidence; 
but in view of its distribution, and the definite character of some 
of it, we can hardly neglect it. It is quite natural that, even 
where it was fully accepted, the Third Epistle should have left 
hardly any trace of its existence. ‘There is scarcely a phrase in it, 
not found in the other Epistles, which we should expect to find 
quoted. But such as it is, the evidence points to a period when 
only two Johannine Epistles were generally accepted in the West, 
and perhaps at Alexandria, a Church which is frequently found in 
agreement with the West rather than the East, in matters 
connected with the Canon as well as in matters of greater 
importance. The Second Epistle would seem to have come into 
circulation more rapidly than the Third. The evidence does 

1 Geschichte des NT. Kanons, pp. 213-220. 


§ 6.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixi 


not, at any rate, justify the usual treatment of the two shorter 
letters as a pair of inseparable twins. With the possible excep- 
tion of one phrase (ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας) in Papias’ quotation, 
or summary, of the words of the Presbyter, we find no certain 
trace of language of the Third Epistle till the time of Augustine 
and Jerome. It was known to Origen, whose influence on 
Eusebius is perhaps most clearly seen in his treatment of the 
books which form the first section of his “" Antilegomena.” It is 
possible that his predecessor Clement treated it as Scripture. 
But it seems to have been very little used. It is quoted by 
Augustine and Jerome, and formed part of the Bible out of 
which Augustine selected his “Speculum,” which must, of course, 
be clearly distinguished from the Liber de Divinis Scripturis, 
generally known as ‘m,’ in which there is no quotation from the 
Third Epistle. The text found in the Speculum is, of course, 
Vulgate, whether that text goes back to S. Augustine himself, as 
Professor Burkitt supposes (/ZS xi. 263 ff., 1910), or is due to 
subsequent alteration. Sabatier’s attempt to reproduce fragments 
of an old Latin translation of the Third Epistle from the 
quotations in Augustine and Jerome, shows that it probably 
existed in an old Latin pre-Vulgate text,—a fact which is placed 
beyond doubt by the fragment contained in the Latin of Codex 
Bezae. 

The history of the smaller Epistles is closely connected with 
that of the substitution of the seven-letter Canon of Catholic 
Epistles for the three-letter Canon of the East, and of which a 
short sketch must now be given. 

In the East the Epistle of James, which Origen certainly 
treated as Scripture in some sense, though not without recording 
the doubts which were felt about it, was soon added to the 
generally recognized Epistles, 1 Peter and 1 John. These three 
letters form the Canon of Catholic Epistles in the Peshitta. 
And this three-letter Canon is found in all the provinces which 
were under the influence of Antioch. Chrysostom, who was 
moved from Antioch to Constantinople in 398, knows and uses 
no other Catholic Epistles. The same Canon is found in the 
Cappadocian Fathers, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory 
of Nyssa in the last quarter of the fourth century. According 
to Lietzmann,! the same can be proved to have been the usage 
of Methodius of Olympus about 300 a.p. During the fourth 
century the process of replacing this shorter Canon by the fuller 
seven-letter Canon was begun and in most places carried through. 
It is fully recognized by Eusebius in several places, and his 
formal list, in which the five Epistles, James, Jude, 2, 3 John, 


1 ** Wie wurden die Biicher des Neuen Testaments heilige Schrift?” 
(Lebens Fragen, ed. Weinel), Tiibingen, 1907. 


xii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 7. 


2 Peter are separated off from the rest of the Antilegomena, 
suggests that it is the Canon which he himself preferred. In this 
he was no doubt influenced by the statements of Origen about 
these letters. In 367, Athanasius put it forward in his thirty-ninth 
Festal Letter as the official list of Egypt. It is, however, found 
still earlier in Cyril of Jerusalem (340). The fact that the letters 
always are found in the same order, wherever this Canon is used 
in the East, suggests that here its adoption was a matter of 
definite policy, due probably to the necessity for uniformity 
felt by the Nicenes in their struggle with the influence of the 
Court. The varying orders found in the West point to a more 
natural and gradual process of adoption. It may be noticed 
that Gregory of Nazianzum names all seven Epistles in his 
list of the Canon, but his own practice seems to have been to 
quote only those found in the shorter Canon. Both the three- 
and the seven-letter Canons are mentioned in the list of Amphi- 
lochius of Iconium in Lycaonia. In the Island of Cyprus, 
Epiphanius is a supporter of the seven-letter Canon. On the 
other hand, Theodoret of Cyrus (430-450) apparently uses in 
his writings only the three letters. In the Syriac Bible the 
seven Epistles appear first in the recension of Philoxenus of 
Mabug (500). 

Enough has been said of the history of the reception of the 
Johannine letters in the West. The acceptance of the Athanasian 
Canon, which contained the three letters of S. John, and its 
final supremacy in the West, were due to the influence of 
Augustine and Jerome. As we see from the Canon Mommseni- 
anus, it did not pass without protest. 

Thus the literary history of the letters shows that the assign- 
ment of an early date to the two shorter letters, especially to the 
Third, depends on the internal evidence of their character and 
content rather than on external attestation. ‘Their final accept- 
ance was undoubtedly due to the belief of the men of the fourth 
century, and in part of the third, in their Apostolic origin. 
During the earlier period of their obscurity they would hardly 
have been preserved but for the respect felt for their author. 
Internal evidence is practically decisive against the hypothesis of 
forgery. The question of their authorship is part of the wider 
problem, which still awaits a satisfactory solution, of the author- 
ship and date of the “ Ephesian Canonical Writings” and of the 
personality of the Ephesian “ Elder.” 


87. Tue, Text. 


The following list gives most of the older and more important 
manuscripts and authorities for the text of the Epistles: 


8.2.] THE TEXT Ixiii 


B. 61. Codex Vaticanus. Rome. Vat. Gr. 1209 
(iv.). 
52. Codex Sinaiticus. Petersburg (iv.). 
. Codex Ephraimi. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 9 
(v.); 1 Jn. 1. 1 rovs—(z2) ewpal Koper], 
iv. 2 εστιν---(3 Jn. 2) ψυχη. 
A. 64. Codex Alexandrinus. London. Brit. 
Mus. Royal Libr. I. D. v.—viii. (v.). 
w. 66. Athos. Lawra 172 (52) (viii.—ix.). 
m3)(-= 33 *="-), $48. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 14 (ix—x). 
48 (=105 5} 8257. Oxford. Bodl. Misc. Gr. 136 (A.D. 1391). 
a3. Petersburg. Bibl. Roy. 225 (ix.). Palimp- 
sest. I Jn. ili. 20—-v. I Tov. 
389. «74. Patmos. Ιωαννου 16 (x.). 
25. a103. London. Brit. Mus. Harley 5537 (a.pD. 
1087). 1 Jn. v. 14-2 Jn. 5 missing. 
61. a162. London. Brit. Mus. Add. 20003, and 
Kairo βιβλ. πατριαρχ 351 (A.D. 1044). 
Apliz6r:-, a7: Simai273 (ix). 
S. az. Athos. Lawra 88 (a88) (viii.—ix.). 
Ly) 5. Rome. Angel. 59. (0] A. 2115) {ix,). 
384. a54. Chalki. Eyzrop. SyxoAn 26 (x.). 
9. a189. Cambridge Univ. Libr. Kk. vi. 4 (xi.- 
xi'.). See Westcott, p. 91, who gives 
a list of the interesting readings con- 
tained in this MS. It is not included 
in von Soden’s list of the manuscripts 
of which he used collations for the 
text of the Catholic Epistles. 


OF 
on 
ῳ 


Old Latin Version. 


h. Hleury Palimpsest, ed. S. Berger, Paris, 1889, and Buchanan, 
Old Latin Biblical Texts, Oxford (v.). 1 Jn. i. 8-111. 20. 

4. Ziegler, tala Fragmente. Marburg, 1876. 1 Jn. ili. 8-v. 21. 

m. Liber de divinis Scripturts sive Speculum, ed. Weihrich. Vienna 
Corpus xiil., 1887. The following verses are quoted: 1 Jn. 
12) FiO, Oy lls Oy 16, 21, 235. ΠΠ 7 Τὸ, Τὸ αν ΤΣ Ὁ» ΤΠ; 
πϑὺν Τ᾿ Ὁ ὃ; EO; (20,20 442s Fs ΤῸ: 11. 

Augustine’s Zvactatus. 1 Jn. 1. I-v. 12. 


Egyptian Versions. 
Sahidic. Balestri, Sacrorum Bibliorum Frag. Copto-Sahid. Mus. 
Borgiani. Vol. iii. (continuation of Ciasca). 1904. 
τ [Dr 22-Va 15572) 10 5-83); 3 Jn: 


Ixiv THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [S§ 7. 


Woide, Appendix ad editionem N.T. Graect. Oxford, 
E790... 2 jai. αν 21; 2 Π.. 32 ἢ: ' 
Delaporte, Revue Bibl. internat. Nouvelle Serie 1]., 
1905. I Jn.1. I-lli. 7, 11]. 9--21, ili. 24-1v. 20. Gives 
by far the most interesting form of the Sahidic text. 
Bohairic. Horner, Zhe Coptic Version of the N.T. in the 
Northern Dialect. Vol. 4. Oxford, 1905. 


Armenian Version. 


Armenian Bible, ed. Zohrab. Venice. 


These Epistles do not offer many problems of special difficulty 
or interest so far as the determination of the true text is con- 
cerned. A comparison of the texts published by Westcott and 
Hort with Nestle’s text, shows how few instances there are in 
which serious doubt exists. The chief interest of the textual 
problems which they present lies in the history of the glosses 
which have been inserted into their text, and a few paraphrases 
which have been substituted for the true texts. The most famous 
of these glosses, the addition of the “‘ Heavenly Witnesses,” does 
not stand by itself. The tendency to gloss is most marked in 
Latin authorities, but it can be traced in the Egyptian and other 
versions, and cursive Greek manuscripts offer a few instances of 
its presence in Greek. An attempt has been made to collect the 
evidence for the Old Latin text of the Epistle in an Appendix. 
The critical notes which have been added to each verse are based 
on Tischendorf’s eighth edition, supplemented where possible 
from later sources of information. For the Egyptian Versions 
(Bohairic and Sahidic), fresh collations have been made, and 
also for the Armenian. ‘Tischendorf’s information has been re- 
produced, as it stands in his edition, where it appears to be 
correct. Corrections and additions are given under the symbols 
boh, sah, arm. ‘The heavier type should make it possible to see 
at a glance the extent to which Tischendorf’s information has 
been supplemented or modified. 

The attempt has also been made to extract from von Soden’s 
Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, τ. 11, C, the variants in 
the text of these Epistles which are to be found in Greek MSS, 
quoted by him, but which are not contained in Tischendorf’s 
critical apparatus. The number of instances in which it has 
been necessary to add a note of interrogation may form some 
indication of the difficulty of using von Soden’s book for this 
purpose. It is much to be hoped that the stores of interesting 
information as to the readings of Greek MSS, especially min- 


§ 7.] THE TEXT Ixv 


uscules, which are contained in his great work, may be published 
in some form which would render them available for general 
use. In the citation of these readings von Soden’s system of 
notation has been reproduced, so that the new material is easily 
distinguishable. At the end of each gvoup of MSS quoted, the 
number which the 77st MS in the group bears in Gregory’s list 
has been added in brackets. In the case of ὃ MSS (ze. those 
which contain the Gospels as well as the Acts and Catholic 
Epistles, etc.), Gregory’s Gospel number has been given. It may 
be noticed that several of the readings of 66 (W) are of con- 
siderable interest. As the Latin text has been dealt with in an 
appendix, no attempt has been made to revise Tischendorf’s 
presentation of its evidence. 
It may be worth while to give some account of von Soden’s 
assignment of variants to his different groups. 
For the /-7—£ text he claims the following oan 
I Jn. i. 4. ἡμεῖς (ὑμιν, C Kas). 
ii. 19. εξ ἡμῶν noav (noav εξ ἡμων). 
111. 2. om. δὲ (after οἰδαμεν) (habet Καὶ Las). 
ili, 14. Om. τὸν αδελῴον (after o μη ayarwv) (habet 
GC K a 5). 
iv. 12. τετελειωμενὴ ἐστιν εν ἡμιν (TET. EV ἡμιν εστιν). 
Vv. Το. €QaUTW (αυτω). 
ν. 20. καὶ οἰδαμεν, A ἃ (οιδαμεν de: Om. και). 
2 πη. 5. καινὴν γραφων σοι (γραφων σοι καινὴν). 
The following cases he regards as uncertain : 
I Jn. 11. το. εν avTw οὐκ εστιν (ουκ ἐστιν ev avtw, W™), 
iii, 23. evroAnv|+ ἡμῖν (om. K Las). 
2 Jn. 12. υὑμων (ημων, W™). 
πεπληρωμενή ἡ. 
3 Jn. 9. ἐγραψα] Ἐ τι (om. τι, K Las: αν, 13 8). 


ff, Uncertain : 
I Jn. 1. 5. om. ἡμων after apaprias (habet ημων, καὶ Cas). 


iil. 7. (?) παιδια, W™ (rexvia). 
ili, 19. τὴν καρδιαν (τας καρδιας). 
2 Jn. 9. προαγων (παραβαινων). 
“ Sonderlesarten ” 
τ Jn. il. 18. om. o before avrixpuoros (habet 0, AK Las). 








Z, Variants due to reminiscences of other passages : 
I Jn.i. 4. ὑμῶν, W™! (quov). Cf. Jn. xv. 11. 


1 2.6. the margin of Westcott and Hort’s edition, 


Ixvi 


THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


[8 7. 























I Jn. σ. ~avrn eorw. Cf. Jn. i. 19. 
ἐπαγγελια (αγγελια). Cf. 1]. 25. 
ii, 27. peverw (μενει). Cf. ver. 24. 
il. 28. exwpev (σχωμεν). Cf. 11]. 21, iv. 17. 
ill. 11. ἐπαγγελια (αγγελια). Cf. 11. 25. 
ill. 15. αὐτω, (εαυτω, W™). Cf. ver. 9. 
ν. 20. αληθινονὴ -- θεον. Cf. Jn. xvil. 3. 
9 Conly. (Chi. 2, 1 25): Jn: xiV.iGs 
Doubtful cases of a similar kind: 
I Jn. i. 5. απαγγελλομεν (avayy-). Cf. ver. 2. 
i. 8. ~ev vpuv οὐκ ἐστιν. Cf. ver. 5. 
i. 9. αμαρτιας]- ἡμων. Cf. ver. 9, iii. 5. 
il 12. vywv (υμιν). Cf. Mt. vi. 15. 
li. 24. ~marpe. .. vw. Cf. ver. 22. 
111. 10. δικαιοσυνὴν] pr. την. Cf. ver. 7; Mt. v. 6, 
View, (3 3e 
1. 18. om. ev. Cf. context. 
ill. 23. To vw . . . X@ (τω ονοματι Tov viov . . « Xd) 
Cf. Jn. iii. 36, ix. 35. ΤΥ 
iv. 19. πρωτον (πρωτος). 
iv. 16. om. pever (2°). Cf. iii. 24 ([μενει], W). 
iv. 19. ayatwpev)+rov Oy. Cf. ver. 20. 
v. 6. ~auwart... vdar. Cf. Jn. xix. 34. 
Vv. 10. vw (θεω). Cf. ver. τοῦ, 
aye 7: ονοματος] + avrov. Cf. 2, Jn. τ τ; ΕΟ Τ᾿ 
παρα (απο). Cf. 2 Jn. 4. 
Doubtful cases of other kinds : 
1Jn.i. 9. καθαρισει (-ση). 
ii. 6. OM. ovTws. 
~OUTWS και AUTOS. 
iv. 3. OM. ex. 
Ψ Lowa) os. Cf Jn, 11 25. 
V. 21. εαυτους (εαυτα). 
2 Jn. 3. vpwv (ημων). 


απο (παρα). 


“ Sonderlesarten ” : 


fin: 1: 
il. 
1. 20: 
il. 29. 


iil. 


3. 
8. 


ip 


om. δε. 

nuw (υμιν). 
πλανοντων. 
ιδητε (ειδητε). 
γεγενηται. 
θεωρει (-ρη). 


87] 
τὸ Jn. iil. 
IV. 


2 π| 
3 Jn. 


Io. 
11. 


ΤΗΕ ΤΕΧΤ Ixvit 


. πεισωμεν. 
«μίσει (-ση). 

. om. wa, 2° 

- OM. αὐτο. 

. ηβουληθην. 

. TavTys (τουτων). 
. γενωμεθα (γιν-). 
. ἐγραψα) + αν. 





om. εκ. 
ο, 25) Ἐ δε. 


K. Uncertain: 


1 7111 
ih ΤΥ. 

Vv. 20. 

Αἰ. τ Jn. 11. 1. 
ii. 18. 

KO: 
16. 
20: 
4. 
IO. 


3 7: 


Io. 


avtw (εαυτω, W™). 
θεωρει (-ρη). 
γινωσκωμεν. 

Om. καὶ ἐσμεν. 
om. εν- 
πεισωμεν. 
om. μένει 
μίσει. 
ἡμῶν. 


εαυτω. 





(2°), 


. “Ὁ θεος ἡμιν. 
Wiss ἐς 
. εαὐτους. 

. γενωμεθα. 


om, εκ. 


“ Sonderlesarten” K*: 


fms 11. 24. 
111. 24. 

ΟΠ ΠΕ 5. 

9. 

8. 

ΤῊ 
Ej 
10. 
18. 
16. 


Ke 52 in 
(1 Jn. iii. 
Me tie 

τὸ Js 1Π|: 
111. 

iv. 


~TaTpl . . . VLOd 
om. kat (3°). 
€Xopev. 

o (2°)|+ δε. 
ἀπολεσητε. .. 
avTw. 

Gewpe. Cf. τ.) 
δικαιοσυνὴν | for τὴν. 
om. εν. 

om. μένει (2°): 


epyacacbe . . . ἀαπολαβητε 


K. “Sonderlesarten ” 


I Jn. i. 3. OM. καὶ (2°). 
᾿ 7. 10] Ὁ Χῦ. 
il. 4. OM. ott. 
ii. 7. αδελφοι (αγαπητοι). 


nkovoarte) + απ ἀρχῆς. 


Ixviii 


1 jn: 
il. 
ii. 


ayn. 


15: 
24. 
27: 


μι 
ω σι 


"» με 
WwW 


_ 
N On > non oa 


THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 7. 


γράφω (eypaya). 
υμεις) + ουν. 

εν ὑμιν μενει. 
avo (αυτου). 
μένειτε (μενετε). 





. oTav (εαν). 

. om. καὶ (W™), 
. vpas (npas). 

- OM. Kaul) 


ade por) + μου. 





. τιθεναι (θειναι). 

. τεκνια] + μου. 

: γινωσκομεν (γνωσομεθα). 
. καρδια] ots ἡμῶν. 

. παρ (am). 

. om. τον. 





Τησουν] + Xv. 
+ Xv ev σαρκι εληλυθοτα. 


. ἀγαπωμεν)ὴ + αὐτον. 


πως (ου). 


. THpwpev (ποιωμεν). 


υμων. 
om. δε. 


. OM. καὶ πνευματος. 
. nv (ore). 


+ ~GLWVLOV ἔχετε. 


EXETE) + και Wa πιστευητε. 
“στοις πιστευουσιν--- θεου ante ινα. 


. παρ (απὶ. 

: Τησου] pr. κῦ. 

. ~eoTl ἡ ἐντολή. 

. εἰσηλθον (εξηλθον). 


. διδαχὴ (2°)|+ του Xv. 
. dew (γενεσθαι). 





om. τή. 


. εθνων (εθνικων). 
. ἀπολαμβάνειν (υπ-). 
. οἰδατε (οιδας). 


. γραφειν γραψαι). 





—= 


om. σοι. 
γράψαι (γραφειν). 


8.7.} THE TEXT 1xix 


** Sonderlesarten ” of unknown origin : 
I Jn. ii, 23. exer ἐχει (2.6. om. ο 2°—exer 2°). 
ill. 1. OM. Kat ἐσμεν. 
2Jn. 6. om. wa (1°). 
IJn.iv. 2. γινωσκεται. 
I. 0 yap λεγων. 
2Jn. 8. απολεσωμεν . .. eipyacapefa .. . απολαβωμεν. 
5. εἰς τους (τουτο). 


Where it seemed necessary for the sake of clearness, the other 
variant or variants have been added in brackets. ‘The readings 
adopted by Westcott and Hort and by Nestle have been 
underlined. If the agreement of these two authorities may be 
taken as affording a rough standard of what is probably the true 
text, it will be seen at once that the variants which von Soden 
claims for the I-H-K text, if we neglect differences in the order 
of words, are with one exception (καὶ owapev for οἰδαμεν δε) 
those which have been accepted as part of the true text by the 
best critics. ‘The same is, however, true of most of the small 
class of readings which he attributes, mostly with some expression 
of doubt, to the ““H” text. Indeed, by the test of intrinsic 
probability, these readings stand as high as those claimed for 
the I-H-K text. It is difficult to believe, for instance, that 
προάγων (2 Jn. 9) is not the true text, softened down by later 
influences to παραβαίνων. It is also difficult to suppose that the 
occurrence of the word in Mk. x. 32 (Jesus “going before” His 
discipies on the way to Jerusalem) had any influence on the 
Johannine text here. But von Soden’s treatment of the “H” 
text may perhaps throw valuable light on the readings where the 
other authorities for the ‘“‘H” text part company with 61-2 (Β δ), 
a subject which needs further investigation. It is also interesting 
to notice how seldom the readings assigned to “I” or “K” 
have been accepted as original. The inclusion of the omission 
of και πνευματος (1 Jn. v. 6) among the “ Sonderlesarten” of K is 
interesting. Does this imply that the true text of the passage 
ran ὁ eAOwy du υδατος Kat atpatos Kat Tvevparos, and that the words 
kat πνευματος Were removed in the “ K” recension because of the 
absence of corresponding words in the second half of the verse ? 
On the whole, it would seem that we must wait for the publi- 
cation of von Soden’s Greek text before we can make much use 
of the information contained in his section on the text of the 
Catholic Epistles, except in so far as it supplies us with informa- 
tion about new readings not known before, or at least not 
recorded in the apparatus criticus of the ordinary editions. 

It may, however, be worth while to append a list of the MSS 
which he assigns to his three Recensions, and which have been 


lxx 


THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


[5 7. 


fully examined for the purposes of his great work. The symbols 
used by Tischendorf and Gregory are given below the von Soden 


numbers. 
1. H Recension. 
δὶ 62 83 64 86 848 ΞΡ 23. Δ ΤΟΣ τὸς 
ΒΝ ΘΟ A. Weare ΛΚ}. ΡΟ 80. (2cr το" 
2. I Recension. 
1 70 -10r 7 -264 200-382 8505 252 
505,40 /iAple6r 2235. 83 221: ὁ (EATS) 5: 
—0459 §203 —§300 —552 
489 (195AK) 808(265AK) 218(65AK) 217 
8454 1700 175 192 502 397 “2905 —106 
Won (262AK)) σοῦ 219; 2,185 τ Οὐ π 179 
-τό4 -261 184 158 6157 —$507 
— 142 — 395 547 (202AK) 241 (104AK) 
5G: 64 65 IIOO 55 254 (? 0254) -I10 
16). 323°. 317 216 220 332 
-0457 —6500 5156 256 361 
209 (95AK) 205 (93AK) 226(108AK) 24 248 
Hic) LEI 
255... 292: 
I’, (a2) 62 365 396 472 398 46206 253 
08. 214 — 512 ὁ) 242 (ΘΖ: 
(β) 78 -157 469 8370 
— 29 215 1149 (288AK). 
1a) 9208 370..12r6 555 
307 353 — 216. 
(B) 364 -486 114 -174 506 
139 555 202 09. 
3. K Recension. 
2 5 54 186 6255 394 500 
S L 384 223 58 35AK) tne ss 


Κι 186 8255 
223 57 (35AK). 

Κα (used for 1 Jn. v. only). 
358 462 8463 


38 169 656 (203AK). 


1 In accordance with von Soden’s usage, when a number is given without 
a preceding letter it belongs to the a group (Acts and Catholic Epistles, etc.) 


§ 8.] COMMENTARIES, ETC. Ixxi 


§ 8. COMMENTARIES, ETC. 


The following list of Commentaries, Articles, and Books has 
been compiled more especially with reference to what has been 
used in the preparation of this edition. The fullest bibliographies 
are to be found in Holtzmann (Hand-Kommentar) and Luthardt 
(Strack-Zockler). 

Ancient Greekh— 

Clement of Alexandria, only extant in Cassiodorus’ Latin 
Summary of the Adumbrationes on Jn. i. ii. (Clement, 
al, ed. Stahlin, ili. p. 209, 1909). 

Oecumenius. 

Theophylact. 

Catena, ed. Cramer. 

Latin— 

Augustine, Zvactatus x. in Epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos 
(Migne, iii. 1 P.L. 34). 
Bede. 
Modern— 
Wettstein. 
Bengel. 
Liicke, 1820-1856. 
Translation, Commentary on the Epp. of S. John. 
Thomas Clark, 1837. 
Huther (in Meyer, 1855-1880). 
Translation, Cvitical and Exegetical Handbook to the 
General Epp. of James and 1 John. T. & T. Clark, 1882. 
F. D. Maurice, Zhe Epistles of S. John. Macmillan & Co., 


1857. 

Ebrard, “ Die Briefe Johannis,” Konigsberg, 1859 in (O/s- 
hausen’s Biblischer Commentar). 

Ewald, Die Johanneischen Schriften. Gottingen, 186t1. 

Haupt, z John. 1869. 

Translation, Zhe First Epistle of S. John. (Clark’s 
Foreign Theological Library, 1879.) 

Rothe, Der Erste Johannis Brief praktisch erklart. 1878. 
A most valuable Commentary. 

Westcott, Zhe Epistles of S. John. Macmillan, 1883-1892. 

Plummer (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and 

Colleges). 1884-1886. 
Pulpit Commentary. 1889. 

Lias (Cambridge Bible for Schools). 1887. 

B. Weiss (Meyer. 6th edition, 1899). In the prepara- 
tion of the notes of the present book the 5th edition 
(1888) was used. 

Luthardt (Strack-Zockler Kurzgef. Kommentar, iv.). 1895. 


ΙΧΧΙΪ 


THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [ὃ 8. 


Poggel, ZZ, 777. John. 1896. 

W. Karl, Johannetsche Studien, i., der 1° Johannesbrief. 
1898. 

Belser. 1906. 

Baumgarten (J. Weiss, Die Schriften des NT. ii. 3, pp. 
315-352). 1907. 

Holtzmann (Hand-Commentar zum NT. iv.). 1908 
(“‘besorgt von W. Bauer”). 

D. Smith (Zxfosttor’s Greek Testament, v.). 1910. 

Windisch (Lietzmann’s Handbuch sum NT. iv. 2). 1911. 


Monographs and Articles : 


Hilgenfeld, Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis 
nach threm Lehrbegriff dargestellt. 1849. 

Holtzmann, Das Problem des 1 Johannesbr. in seinem 
Verhaltniss zum Evang. Jahrbuch fiir Protestant. 
Theologie. 1881, 1882. 

Haring (Theodor), “‘Gedankengang τ. Grundgedanke des 
1 Joh.” (Zheolog. Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker 
gewidmet). Freiburgin B. 1882. 

Harnack, Ueber den III Joh. Texte u. Untersuchungen, xv. 
3, 1897. 

Stevens, Zhe Johannine Theology. New York, 1894. 

Wilamowitz, Hermes, 1898, p. 531 ff. 

Weisinger, Studien u. Kritiken, 1899, p. 575 ff. 

J. R. Harris, Zxposttor, 1901, p. 194 ff. 

Wohlenberg, Weue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 1902. 

Gibbins, Lxfosttor, 1902, p. 228 ff. 


. Wurm,Die Irrlehrer im 1" Johannes Brief. 1903. 


Chapman, Journal of Theological Studies, 1904, pp. 357 ff. 
517 fff. 

Bartlet, 77S, 1905, p. 204 ff. (in answer to Chapman). 

Clemen, Zeztschrift fiir NT. Wissenschaft (Preuschen), 
1905, p. 278. 

Salmond, article in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. 

P. W. Schmiedel, articles in Luxcyclopedia Biblica, also 
Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbiicher: Das 4 Evangelium 
gegeniiber den 3 ersten. Evangelium, Briefe, u. 
Offenbarung des Joh. nach threr Entstehung u. Bedeu- 
tung. 1906. 

Expositor, June 1907. Correspondence between Drs. 
Westcott and Hort. The Divisions of the First 
Ep. of S. John. 

Law, Zests of Life (Lectures on 1 Jn.). T. δὲ ‘T. Clark, 
1909. 


Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal. Hodder, 1909. 


4a 


ξ9.] SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES. AUTHORSHIP _ Ixxiii 
General: 
Wellhausen, Zrwetterungen u. Anderungen im gten Evan- 
gelium. 
Spitta, Das 4 Evangelium. τοτο. 
Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum. Berlin, 1902. 
Translation. Primitive Christianity. Montgomery. 
London, 1906. 
Knopf, WMachapostolische Zeitalter, p. 328 ff., 1905. 
Zahn, Einlettung in das NT. First edition, 1897. 
Translation (from the 2nd edition), 1909: T. ἃ T. Clark. 
Jilicher, Zin/eitung. 
Translation. Ax Introduction to the New Testament. 
J. P. Ward. London, 1904. 


§ 9. THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES. AUTHORSHIP. 


The Second and Third Epistles of S. John naturally form a 
pair. They are almost exactly of the same length. Their length 
is probably determined by the size of an ordinary papyrus sheet 
(Zahn, Z7n/. ii. 581. Rendel Harris). 

It is hardly necessary to discuss the question of their common 
authorship. ‘The similarity between them is too close to admit of 
any explanation except common authorship or conscious imita- 
tion. It would tax the ingenuity of the most skilful separator to 
determine which is the original and which the copy. They 
probably do not deal with the same situation, though many 
writers have found a reference to the Second Epistle in the Third 
(ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ). But the similarity of their style and the 
parallelism of their structure point clearly, not only to common 
authorship, but to nearness of date. 

The following phrases show the close similarity of their 
general structure : 


B’ Me 

ὁ πρεσβύτερος. 

ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 

ἐχάρην γὰρ Nav. . . μαρτυρούντων 
σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καθὼς σὺ ἐν ἀλη- 
θείᾳ περιπατεῖς. 

ἵνα ἀκούω τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ 
περιπατοῦντα. 


ὁ πρεσβύτερος. 

ods ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 

ἐχάρην λίαν ὅτι εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων 
σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 


πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν. 
οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος. 


ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 
καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι. 
ἀσπάζεταί σε τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου. 


πολλὰ εἶχον γράψαι σοι. 

ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου 
σοι γράφειν. 

ἐλπίζω δὲ εὐθέως σε ἰδεῖν. 

καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλήσομεν. 

ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ φίλοι. 


Ixxiv THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 9. 

It may be a question how much of this should be referred to 
epistolary convention, and how much should be regarded as the 
sondergut of the writer. But the close resemblance, coupled with 
complete independence in the parts where circumstances and sub- 
ject-matter naturally lead to diversity, can hardly be explained on 
any other theory except that the two letters are by the same hand. 

A more serious question is raised when the two letters are 
compared with the First Epistle. Here there is a certain amount 
of evidence, both external and internal, which is not conclusive of 
difference of authorship, but at least needs serious consideration. 


They have many phrases which recall, or are identical with, 


those of the First Epistle. 


μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, 2 Jn. 9. 

τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, 
2 |i ΖΕ 

περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, 2 Jn. 4; cf. 
3 Jn. 3. 

περιπατῶμεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολάς, 2 Jn. 6. 

ὁ κακοποιῶν οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν θεόν, 


3D. tr. 


ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν. 

ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν, 3 Jn. 12 
(cf. Jn. xxi. 24). 

ἀλήθεια thrice in each Epistle. 

ἡ ἀλήθεια twice in 2 Jn., thrice (four 
times) in 3 Jn. 

οὗτος καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει, 
2 Jn. 9. 

θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει, 2 Jn. 9. 


(ἐντολὴν) ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 2 Jn. 5. 


καθὼς ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 2 Jn. 6. 

οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν 
ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί. 

οὗτός ἐστιν. . . ὁ ἀντίχριστος, 2 Jn. 


. 
ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστι, 3 Jn. 12. 


οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι καινήν, 
72, \fins 

ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. .. 

ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν πεπληρωμένη 7, 2 Jn. 
12. 

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα περιπατῶμεν 

Ξ aie 

οὔτε ἐπιδέχεται. .. 

Io. 


καὶ κωλύει, 3 Jn. 


We may notice the following : 


ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, I Jn. iv. 16. 

ὁ λογὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, I Jn. 
il. 14. 

ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, 1 Jn. i, 7. 


καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν I Jn. ii. 6. 

τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν, I Jn. iv. 20. 

πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτόν, 
I Jn. ii. 6. 

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστέ, I Jn. iv. 4. 

ἀληθές ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ψεῦδος, 1 Jn. 

ii. 27. 
once in I Jn. 
eight times in I Jn. 


πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν 
πατέρα ἔχει. 

ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, 
τὴ fio πο ey 

ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 
τ [fine ty 7 

ἣν ἠκούσατε am’ ἀρχῆς, I Jn. iii. 11. 

ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ 
ἐληλυθότα, I Jn. iv. 2. 

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἁντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος 
τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν, I Jn. ii. 22. 

εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβά- 
νομεν, I Jn. ν. 9. 

οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, I Jn. 
11: ἢ: 


ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν 
ἢ πεπληρωμένη, I Jn. i. 4. 

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ἵνα πιστεύω- 
μεν I Jn. ill. 23. 

Cf. οὔτε... ἔχεις καὶ . . . ἐστιν, Jn. 
iv. II. 


We may also notice the thoroughly Johannine method of 
emphasizing an idea by parallel clauses, one positive and the 


other negative. 


CE j2) Jn, og) 71 τὶ. 


§ 9.] SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES. AUTHORSHIP Ixxv 


A careful comparison of these instances of words, phrases, and 
constructions which are common to the two smaller Epistles and 
the larger Epistle establishes beyond the possibility of doubt the 
intimate connection between the two. A knowledge of the First 
Epistle, or of its contents, seems almost necessarily presupposed 
in some passages of the smaller Epistles. Cf. especially 2 Jn. 9, 
3 Jn. 11. 2 Jn. 12 need not contain an actual reference to 1 Jn. 
i. 4, but it gains in point if it is written in view of what is said 
there about the “fulfilment of joy.” In the one case it is the 
written, in the other the spoken, word that is lacking to assure 
the fulness of joy which comes of fellowship. And it is in- 
teresting to notice the similarity of the results obtained by a 
comparison of 2 and 3 John with 1 John to those which appear 
when we compare the Gospel and the First Epistle. The con- 
nection is indisputable. We are compelled to choose between 
common authorship and conscious imitation. And the freedom 
with which the same and similar tools are handled points clearly 
to the former as the more probable alternative. 

The internal evidence of different authorship on which 
Pfleiderer depends is not conclusive. He notices (1) the 
anonymous and general character of the First Epistle, as com- 
pared with the address of the Second to a particular Church, 
and the Third to an individual, named Caius, and the use of the 
title “The Presbyter” by the author in both. (2) The common 
identification of this “ Presbyter” with John the Presbyter is 
supported by no valid reasons. There must have been many 
other ‘‘ Presbyters,” and those addressed would know who was 
meant, though it was not the famous “ Presbyter” of Papias. 
We really know nothing of Papias’ Presbyter except that he 
“handed down” a Chiliastic saying attributed to the Lord. 
Such-an one was not likely to have busied himself with Gnostic 
theology and anti-Gnostic polemic. In his case the term 
“Elder” is used in the natural sense of the term; in these 
Epistles it is a title of office, used by one who claims respect 
for his official position, who dictates to the faithful as to the 
company they are to keep, gives letters of commendation to 
wandering preachers, and is offended at their being neglected. 
(3) The anti-Gnostic polemic of 2 John is the same as that of 
Polycarp, ad Phil. vii. 1, pure docetism, as found in Ignatius, 
and not the milder and later separation between Jesus and 
Christ. 

Of these reasons some are pure assumptions, and others are 
fuily accounted for by the (possible) differences of circumstance. 
There is nothing in the Epistles which necessitates an official use 
of the term “Elder,” though one who is aged may be in a 
position to speak and act with authority. The authority which 


Ixxvi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 9. 


the author claims is far greater than ever attached to the office 
of “‘ Presbyter.” 

The question of whether “pure Docetism” is earlier than 
‘dualistic separation” of the kind attributed to Cerinthus is an 
open one. But where is the justification for differentiating 
between the Second and the First Epistles in this respect? The 
language of the Second is hardly intelligible without reference to 
the First. It may certainly be interpreted in the same sense. 

The reasons brought forward by Jiilicher (Zzx/ettung, p. 218) 
are not more convincing. The expressions ἐχάρην λίαν, βλέπετε 
ἑαυτούς (cf. τ Jn. v. 21, φυλάξατε ἑαυτά), μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολαμ- 
βάνειν, συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα, ἀγαθοποιεῖν, do not prove much. The 
use of the singular only of Antichrist is equally unconvincing, 
especially in view of 1 Jn. ii. 22. The difference between ἐληλυ- 
θότα and ἐρχόμενον is at least less striking than the resemblance of 
the rest of the passages. The apparent contradiction between 
3 Jn. 11, ὃ κακοποιῶν οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν θεόν, and Jn. 1. 18, 1 Jn. 
iv. 12, could easily be paralleled by similar “contradictions” in 
the Gospel (cf. also Jn. xiv. 9). 

Both writers also lay stress on the external evidence. That 
the two smaller Epistles found their way into the Canon apart 
from the First is partly true. There is, however, considerable 
evidence for the acceptance of ¢wo Johannine Epistles, z.e. 1, 2 Jn., 
before the three were generally recognized. And the private 
character of the smaller Epistles, as well as their relative un- 
importance, are quite enough to account for their more gradual 
acceptance, even if they were written by the author of the First. 
Pfleiderer’s statement, that the Second and Third Epistles are 
described in the Muratorian Fragment as written in John’s 
name to do honour to him, rests on a very doubtful interpretation 
of the passage in which two Johannine Epistles, almost certainly 
the First and Second, are mentioned, after which comes the 
sentence dealing with the Wisdom of Solomon. 

Schwartz! regards the two Epistles as, ‘‘in contrast to the First, 
genuine letters of a real Elder,” whose name, however, cannot have 
been John, or it would not have been necessary “to cut away his 
real name, in order to bring these interesting documents into the 
Canon.” This is an excellent reason for supposing that the name 
John never stood in these Epistles. It does not help us to 
determine the probability or improbability of the view that the 
letters were written by one John, who described himself as ‘‘ the 
Elder” without adding his name. 

The impossibility of a Chiliast such as Papias’ “John the 
Elder” having any part in the composition of the Johannine 
literature is emphasized by many writers, especially by Pfleiderer 

1 Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedat, p. 47. 


§ 9.] SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES. AUTHORSHIP Ixxvii 


and Réville (‘‘ce presbytre Jean en qui le millénaire Papias 
saluait un de ses maitres,” Ze Quatri¢me Evangile, p. 50). All we 
know of him, if in this case we may trust Irenaeus more than 
many writers are usually willing to do, is that Papias recorded 
on his authority the famous Chiliastic saying about the fruitful- 
ness of the Messianic kingdom. In what sense he interpreted 
it we do not know. If the Presbyter to whom Papias owes his 
account of S. Mark is the same, as would seem most probable, 
he was certainly capable of sound judgment and careful apprecia- 
tion. And one phrase which occurs in the Third Epistle recalls, 
or is recalled by, the words of Papias’ preface (ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀλη- 
θείας). It is somewhat hasty to assume that the “ Presbyter 
venerated by the Chiliastic and stupid Papias ” (Réville, p. 316) 
was incapable of anything “spiritual.” He handed down a 
‘Chiliastic” saying, or one which was perhaps too grossly 
‘Chiliastic” in its literal meaning to have been taken literally, 
even by the Elder who handed it down. His views were 
probably Millenarian. It would be difficult to find any one 
“venerated” at the end of the first or beginning of the second 
century who did not in some sense share the ordinary Chiliastic 
expectation of most Christians. But as to how “gross,” or how 
“stupid,” his views were we really know nothing. Even Papias 
may have been better than Eusebius thought him. In any case 
we have but slender evidence to justify the transference of all his 
“stupidities ” to the Elder John whose traditions he has preserved. 
The position of authority, not claimed so much as used and acted 
upon, by the author of these two Epistles, is such as perhaps 
could only belong to a representative of the older generation. 
Whether it would be natural for John the Apostle to describe 
himself as ‘the Elder” is at least open to question. There can be 
no doubt of the naturalness of the title if used by such an one as 
John the Elder, the disciple of the Lord. 

We have every reason to believe that an “Elder” held a 
predominant position in Asia Minor about the close of the first 
century. There are valid reasons for calling him John. His 
relation to John the son of Zebedee is a mystery which, at present 
at least, we have not enough evidence to enable us to solve. 
Harnack’s conjecture, based on the most natural interpretation 
of the fragment of Papias’ preface which Eusebius has preserved, 
that he was a pupil of John the Apostle, and in some sense a 
disciple of the Lord, is perhaps the hypothesis which leaves 
fewest difficulties unsolved. That he is the author of the two 
smaller Epistles is the view which seems to be best supported by 
external tradition and by internal probability. The arguments in 
favour of different authorship for Gospel, First Epistle, and the 
two shorter Epistles are not negligible, but they are not con- 


[xxviii THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 9. 


clusive. The theory which attributes to him some share at least 
in the writing of Gospel and First Epistle is the most probable 
conjecture that we can at present make. To what extent he is 
answerable for the matter of either is a difficult problem, perhaps 
insoluble in the present state of our knowledge. Most of the 
difficulties which every historical inquirer must feel to stand in 
the way of attributing the Gospel (in its present form) and the 
Epistle (they are less in this case than in that of the Gospel) to 
the son of Zebedee are modified, though they are not removed, by 
the hypothesis that a disciple is responsible for the final redaction 
of his master’s teaching. The longer and the more carefully the 
Johannine literature is studied, the more clearly one point seems 
to stand out. The most obviously “genuine” of the writings are 
the two shorter Epistles, and they are the least original. To 
believe that an author, or authors, capable of producing the 
Gospel, or even the First Epistle, modelled their style and 
teaching on the two smaller Epistles, is a strain upon credulity 
which is a/mos¢ past bearing. Are we not moving along lines of 
greater probability if we venture to suppose that a leader who 
had spent his life in teaching the contents of the Gospel, at last 
wrote it down that those whom he had taught, and others, “ might 
believe, and believing might have life in His name”; that after 
some years he felt that the message of the Gospel had not pro- 
duced the effect on their lives and creed which he had expected, 
and that he therefore made the appeal of the First Epistle, 6 
ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μενέτω, bidding them make use of what they 
already knew, and assuring them that in it they would find the 
help they needed to face the circumstances in which they now 
found themselves placed? ‘The differences between the two 
writings may well be due to the needs of a simpler and more 
popular appeal. It is the circumstances of the hearers and their 
capacity to understand which determine his message, rather 
than any very clear change in his own position or opinions. At 
the same time or at a later period he may have had to deal with 
the special circumstances of a particular Church or particular 
individuals, and again the special circumstances of his hearers 
and their intellectual and spiritual capacity have determined the 
form and the substance of his appeal. The term ‘‘ Catholic” is 
a misleading one. It has perhaps misled the critical even more 
than the conservative interpreters of these Epistles. It is 
impossible to understand these letters if they are regarded as 
having been originally composed as a message to the whole 
Church, or for all time. The writer knows those whom he 
addresses. He writes with full knowledge of their immediate 
circumstances and of their spiritual powers. If we are to 
interpret his words, we must consider, not so much what he could 


§ 10.] THE SECOND EPISTLE Ixxix 


have said himself, as the circumstances which tied him down to 
saying that which his readers could understand. It is possible 
that advancing years may have modified his views, and even 
weakened his powers. But the special circumstances which 
called for his intervention, and perhaps the νωθρότης of his 
hearers, offer a far more probable explanation of the difference 
which we cannot but feel between the spiritual heights of the 
Gospel and the common-place advice of the shorter Epistles. 
He who proclaimed ὃ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο may still have believed 
it, though he finds himself compelled to write μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν 
ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν, and to make appeals to his personal authority in 
the case of those to whom his deeper thoughts were as a sealed 
book. 


§ 10. THE SECOND EPISTLE. 


The chief object of this letter is to give the Church or the 
family to whom it is addressed, clear advice and instruction 
about the reception of Christians from other Churches. The 
duty of hospitality was recognized and enforced. We may 
compare He. xiii. 2. 

It was a necessary part of the duty of each Church, or of 
some leading members in it, during the whole of the period 
when the union of the various members of the Christian body 
was being secured by the work of “Apostles, Prophets, Evan- 
gelists, Teachers,” who went about from place to place, while 
the resident officers were expected to submit to the authority 
of the higher vazk. In the opinion of the Elder, who clearly 
claims to exert his authority over all the Churches in the sphere 
in which he lives, there was danger of the abuse of hospitality. 
False teachers are taking advantage of the opportunity to dis- 
seminate their errors. So he lays down the two practical tests 
which may form guiding principles in offering hospitality to 
strangers. They are the same points which are insisted upon in 
the First Epistle. Those who carry out the Gospel in their lives, 
who “walk in love,” and who recognize fully the reality and the 
permanence of the Incarnation, who “confess Jesus Christ 
coming in the flesh,” are to be received. The Progressives who 
do not abide in the “teaching of the Christ” must be refused. 
Even to give them greeting is to participate in their evil works. 
Incidentally the Elder takes the occasion thus offered to 
encourage those who are faithful, who are “walking in truth,” 
and to urge on them once more the duty of “walking in love” 
as well as of remaining true to the teaching which they had 
heard “‘from the beginning.” He reserves what he has to say 
at greater length, till he has the opportunity of seeing and 


Ixxx THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 10. 


conversing with them, on the visit which he hopes soon to be 
able to pay them. 

The situation recalls that of the Didache, where the same 
difficulty of how the ‘‘ Prophets” are to be received is seriously 
felt and discussed at length. There the danger is rather of 
those who make a regular custom of demanding maintenance 
as Prophets who come in the name of the Lord, and so of living 
in idleness at the expense of others. In the Epistle the dis- 
semination of false teaching is the chief danger to be guarded 
against. It would be rash to describe the situation found in 
the Didache as a later development than that which is suggested 
in this letter. At the same time the similarity of the circum- 
stances does not necessitate the assignment of both writings 
to exactly the same date. Development was at different rates 
in different places. From what we know of the history of the 
Asiatic Churches, we might naturally expect stages to be reached 
there at an earlier date than in some other regions. The 
evidence, therefore, of this resemblance to the Didache should 
be used with caution in determining the date of the Epistle. In 
itself the parallel is clear and interesting. We may also compare 
the praise bestowed on the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius for their 
hospitable reception of Philo and Agathopus (Ign. Sm. 10), or 
Polycarp’s thanks to the Philippians for their kindness to the 
prisoners (Pol. ad Phil. 1). 

The well-known controversy about the destination of this 
Epistle shows no signs of a final settlement. The view that it 
was addressed to an individual lady and not to a Church has of 
late been most vigorously supported by Rendel Harris (Zxfositor, 
1001). Advocates of this view have found her name either in 
Electa or in Kyria, which is not unknown as the name of a 
woman (cf. Liicke, p. 444). 

The names of Mary and Martha have also been suggested, 
the former because of the incident recorded in Jn. xix. 27, the 
latter for a supposed play on the name (Martha-domina- 
Kyria). It is hardly necessary to discuss seriously these con- 
jectures of Knauer and Volkmar. The name Electa is almost 
certainly excluded by ver. 13, and by the improbability of two 
sisters bearing the same name. If the letter is addressed to an 
individual, the name is clearly not given. The use of Κυρία is 
very wide. It may be a purely formal title of courtesy. It is 
certainly used frequently by near relations, whether as a token 
of affection, or mark of courtesy real or assumed. In spite of 
Rendel Harris’ ingenious suggestions, the use of the word by 
relations, even if the Editors of Papyri are frequently right in 
translating it ‘“‘ My dear,” does not go very far towards establish- 
ing the view that we have in this Epistle a ‘“‘love-letter.” The 


§ 11.] THE THIRD EPISTLE Ixxxi 


formal use of κυρία is undoubtedly well established, and the 
character of the Epistle can only be determined by more 
general considerations. If we examine the whole contents of 
the letter we can hardly escape the conclusion that a Church 
and not an individual is addressed. The language of ver. 1, 
“Whom I love in truth, and not I only, but all who know the 
truth,” is at least more natural if it is addressed to a community. 
It is clear from ver. 4 that the writer can only praise the conduct 
of some of the “children,” while the address in ver. 1 is general, 
‘‘and her children.” If it is necessary to assume that the word 
τέκνα has a narrower meaning in ver. 1 than in ver. 4, the difficulty, 
such as it is, is about the same whether the reference is to a 
single family or to a whole Church. Julicher’s argument (£7z- 
leitung, p. 216) does not gain much by the inclusion of this 
point. We cannot say more than that the references to the 
whole family in ver. 1, and toa part of it in ver. 4, are rather more 
natural if the “family” be a Church. On the other hand, the 
change between singular and plural (4, 5, 13 as compared with 
6, 8, 10, 12) certainly favours the view that a Church is ad- 
dressed. Interesting parallels of a similar change between 
singular and plural have been noticed in the Book of Baruch. 
And, as Julicher truly says, the general contents of the letter are 
‘anything rather than private in character.” 


§ 11. THE TuirD EPISTLE. 


The general outline of the circumstances which led to the 
writing of this Epistle may be traced with some certainty, 
though there are many details which cannot be so certainly 
determined. 

There can be no doubt that it is addressed to an individual, 
and not to a Church: though nothing is known for certain 
about the Caius to whom it is sent; and his identification with 
any of the other bearers of that name who are mentioned in 
the New Testament, or known to early tradition, is extremely 
precarious. 

The object of the letter is to claim the good services of 
Caius on behalf of some travelling Missionaries who are about 
to visit Caius’ Church, and who are either members of the 
Church over which the Elder presides, or have recently visited 
it. It would seem that the Missionaries had previously visited 
the Church of Caius, and had been hospitably received by him. 
On their return to (?) Ephesus they had borne public witness 
at a meeting of the Church to the kindness which they had 
received at his hands. On the ground of this the Elder con- 
fidently appeals to Caius to repeat his former kindness, when 


ae 


Ixxxil THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [§ 11. 


the occasion arrives, on their next visit to his Church. He 
claims on their behalf hospitality and help. They should be 
“sent forward” in a manner worthy of the Master whom they 
served. And they had a right to claim support, for they had 
maintained the Pauline custom in their work among heathen, 
of receiving nothing from those to whom they preached (cf. 
Ac. xx. 35; 1 ΤῊ. 11: 9; 2 Th. iii. 8). All Christians (ver. 8) were 
bound to support and help forward such work to the best of their 
power. To do so was to work for the Truth, or rather to make 
themselves fellow-workers with Truth itself. 

The Elder had previously written to the Church of which 
Caius and Diotrephes were members. But Diotrephes, whose 
ambition was known to the Elder, and who had succeeded in 
gaining an ascendency over the Church, or at any rate over 
the majority of its influential members, had managed either to 
suppress the letter, or to persuade the Church to ignore its 
contents. He not only refused himself to receive those who 
came with the Elder’s commendation, but made it his policy to 
try to drive out of the Church those who were anxious to take 
the opposite course, if he could not succeed in preventing their 
efforts by simpler methods (ver. 10). It was time for the Elder 
to intervene. He has to remind Caius and those who will 
listen to his admonitions that there are such things as right and 
wrong. Their choice will show whether they are Christians in 
anything more than name. ΤῸ do the right is the sign of the 
birth from God, and of the enjoyment of the Vision of God. 

It would seem that Diotrephes had found his opportunity in 
the suspicion in which Demetrius was held by the Church. 
He is clearly one who possessed the esteem of the Elder, and 
who had been recommended to Caius’ Church by him. His 
relation to that Church and to the travelling Missionaries is not 
equally certain, and different views have been held on this point. 
Some have regarded him as one of the Missionaries, or as their 
leader, to whom the Elder had borne witness in a previous 
letter of commendation. Others have thought, from the separate 
mention of him and of the travellers, that he had nothing to do 
with them, but was a member of the Church to which the letter 
is addressed. Such a view is quite possible. Without accepting 
the over-ingenious conjecture of Dom Chapman, that the Elder 
had already mentally designated him Bishop of the Church, 
it is certainly natural to suppose, with Wilamowitz, that one of 
the main objects of the letter is to serve as a letter of com- 
mendation for Demetrius, and that he at least travelled with 
the Missionaries on the journey which forms the occasion of 
the Epistle, whether he was actually one of their company or 
not. It would, of course, be fairly easy to form a good many 


§ 11.] THE THIRD EPISTLE Ixxxiii 


hypotheses which would all suit the few facts of the situation 
known to us. It is better to confine ourselves to the simplest 
and most natural. And that would seem to be that Demetrius 
was one of the band of Missionaries whom the Church of Caius 
and Diotrephes had special reasons to mistrust. It seems to 
need all the authority, official or personal, which the Elder 
possessed, and all his personal influence with a faithful friend, 
to ensure a hospitable reception for one who has, in his opinion 
unjustly, fallen under suspicion. 

If it is idle to identify the recipient of the letter with any 
other Caius known to the New Testament, it is even less pro- 
fitable to attempt the identification of Demetrius. Dom Chap- 
man’s suggestion, that he is the Demas of 2 Ti. iv. το (Δημᾶς γάρ 
pe ἐγκατέλιπεν ἀγαπήσας τὸν viv αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Θεσσαλο- 
νίκην), has little in its favour save its necessity to complete 
a fabric of conjecture of which the ingenuity is far more ap- 
parent than its probability. Prof. Bartlet’s suggestion, that 
Demetrius the silversmith (of Ac. xix. 24) is more likely, may 
be placed slightly higher in the scale of probability. But the 
game of guessing is misleading in attempts to reconstruct the 
unknown circumstances under which the Epistle was written. 
It is more reasonable to confine our attention to what may be 
legitimately deduced from the actual references of the Epistle. 

A further question is raised by ver. 9. Are we to identify the 
letter to which reference is there made with the Second Epistle ? 
In favour of this have been urged (1) the close connection of 
the two Epistles in tradition; (2) the probability that 2 Jn. is 
addressed to a Church; (3) the close connection between the 
two Epistles in thought and language. Of these arguments the 
first is of doubtful value. The connection is hardly so close as 
is often supposed, the evidence for a period of acceptance of 
two Johannine Epistles (ze. 1, 2 Jn.) without the third is really 
considerable. ‘The others deserve serious consideration, and in 
reference to (3) we must certainly remember that the object of 
both letters is to a large extent the same, the determination of 
the rules which should guide Churches in the matter of receiving 
and offering hospitality to travelling Teachers. In some ways 
the negative rules of 2 Jn. form a natural supplement to the more 
positive suggestions of the Third Epistle. But, on the other 
hand, serious difficulties are raised by (1) the absence of any 
mention in 3 Jn. of the False Teachers, and (2) the absence in 
2 Jn. of any reference to Diotrephes, or to the high-handed 
proceedings of an official or prominent member of the Church. 
Of these reasons, which are urged by Harnack, the first is the 
most important. The high-handed action of any prominent 
member might naturally succeed rather than precede the 


Ixxxiv THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 12. 


reception of the letter which contained the Elder’s instructions. 
He also urges that 2 Jn. presupposes an altogether different 
state of feeling and opinion in the Church to which it is 
addressed as compared with what we may naturally conclude 
from the Third Epistle. The attitude of the two Churches to 
strangers is quite different. Perhaps a more convincing reason 
is found in the fact that the Second Epistle does not contain 
the matter which we should expect to find in the “suppressed ” 
letter to which the Elder refers in 3 Jn. It must have dealt 
with the question (or questions) of the reception of Demetrius 
and the travelling Missionaries ; at least it is natural to suppose 
that 3 Jn. is written to secure through the good services of a 
private friend what the Elder had demanded in a more public 
way. It is, of course, possible that the reception of his require- 
ments in 2 Jn. had been such that he now hesitated to make 
public the different requests which he writes to Caius. But the 
former supposition is the more natural. We should probably 
therefore add this instance to the many indications in the 
Epistles of the N.T. of a wider correspondence than has been 
preserved in the Canon. 


§ 12. HistoricAL BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EPISTLES. 


Within the last few years a number of ingenious, if highly 
conjectural, reconstructions have been attempted of the circum- 
stances which called out the two Epistles, with more or less com- 
plete identifications of the persons named, and of the Churches 
addressed. Detailed criticism of many points suggested by 
these schemes is perhaps better reserved for the notes on the 
text. But some general account of one or two of them may be 
attempted. 

The most ingenious, and possibly the least convincing, is 
that which Dom Chapman contributed in his articles in the 
Journal of Theological Studies (1904, pp. 357 ff., 517 ff.). Seeing 
rightly that the language in which Demetrius is commended by 
the Elder clearly implies that he had for some reason or other 
fallen under suspicion, he puts forward the bold conjecture 
that Demetrius is the Demas of 2 Ti. iv. to who forsook S. 
Paul when danger became acute (contrast Col. iv. 14), “having 
loved this present world.” Dom Chapman reminds us that the 
Second Epistle to Timothy found him at Ephesus, and suggests 
that the Asiatic Churches were inclined to take a harsh view of 
the conduct of Demas. In the recipient of this Epistle he sees 
the Caius of Corinth, whose hospitality is praised in Ro. xvi. 23 
(“mine host and of the whole Church”); and following the early 
tradition recorded by Origen (on Ro. x. 41), that this Caius 


8. 12.] BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EPISTLES Ixxxv 


became the first Bishop of Thessalonica, he suggests that 
Demas, who was perhaps a Macedonian, when he left Rome 
had travelled to Thessalonica, which he may have left when 
the reception of 2 Timothy made his position there untenable. 
At a later date he wished to return, and when he presented 
himself with a commendatory letter from the Elder he was 
well received by Caius, but the “pratings” of Diotrephes 
persuaded the Church to refuse him hospitality. He now has 
to pass through Thessalonica on his way westwards, and bears a 
second letter from the Elder to secure a more friendly reception. 
It is perhaps sufficient here to suggest that imaginary recon- 
structions of this kind do very little to help forward the study 
of history. A series of propositions, none of which are in 
themselves either impossible or specially probable, when com- 
bined into a single hypothesis fail to-form a satisfactory basis 
for exegesis. And the question naturally arises, have we 
sufficient ground for assuming that the Elder would claim such a 
position of authority in respect of the Churches of Macedonia 
as is implied in the words and threatened action of the Third 
Epistle Ὁ 

His suggestions with regard to the Second Epistle are even 
more hazardous. The description of the Church as loved by 
all who know the truth, and as having heard the command- 
ment from the beginning, is specially applicable to Antioch or 
Rome. The “elect sister” is naturally the Church of Ephesus. 
He connects ἐκλεκτός, a word foreign to the Johannine 
vocabulary, with the emphatic reference in 1 P. v. 13, 9 ἐν 
Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή, and suggests that the phrase “walking in 
truth, as we received commandment for the faith,” should be 
interpreted in the light of Jn. x. 17, 18, where the “ Father’s 
command” is connected with the laying down of life. The 
community to whom these words are addressed must have proved — 
their faithfulness by martyrdom. So we are led to the con- 
clusion that it is the Church of Rome which is addressed. The 
False Teachers have lost their footing in Asia Minor, the First 
Epistle has closed the doors of Asiatic Churches to them. So 
they are making attempts elsewhere, and the warning is issued 
to the Church of the metropolis. Such is the hypothesis in 
general outline. It is supported by many ingenious suggestions 
as to details. But the interpretation of ver. 4 in connection 
with Jn. x. 17 1s too doubtful to serve as a foundation. 

Professor Bartlet (/ZS, 1905) has pointed out several of 
the difficulties presented by the text of the Epistles, if it is 
translated correctly, to these ingenious conjectures, while he 
rightly welcomes the correct appreciation of the significance of the 
terms in which Demetrius is commended, His suggestion that 


Ixxxvi THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 12. 


Demetrius the silversmith may be meant, is at least as probable 
as Dom Chapman’s conjecture. And his further suggestion 
that Thyatira is more probably the Church of Caius and 
Demetrius has at least the merit of looking in the right quarter, 
within the natural sphere of the Elder’s influence and authority. 

Dr. Rendel Harris has made no attempt at so complete a 
restoration of the background of these Epistles. The instances 
which he quotes of κυρία used in the correspondence of near 
relatives are interesting. He has hardly succeeded in proving 
that even in such cases it is used asa term of affection, rather 
than of courtesy, or (?) mock courtesy. And even if this point 
were proved, it would not go far towards proving that in this 
particular Epistle it is so used. Its official and ceremonious 
use is in any case far more frequent. By itself it hardly 
establishes the personal and affectionate character of the letter, 
or justifies the description of it as a “love-letter.” The question 
of “lady” or “Church” must be determined by the general 
character of the letter. He has also noticed an interesting 
parallel to the language of 2 Jn. 8, in Ru. ii. 12, which should 
form a welcome addition to our Biblical marginal references, 
and to the many indications that the author of the Johannine 
Epistles was well acquainted with the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament. But it would be safer zot to deduce from the 
occurrence of ἐργασία and μισθὸς πλήρης in one verse in Ruth the 
suggestion that the recipient of this letter was elderly, a heathen 
Christian, and probably a widow! 

In this connection we should perhaps mention the conjecture 
of Thoma,! that Pergamos should be regarded as the Church 
with which the Second Epistle deals, on the ground, according to 
the Afostolical Constitutions (vii. 46), that Caius was ordained 
bishop of that Church by John. The list of ‘‘ Bishops” mentioned 
in Af. Con. vii. 46 is worth quoting: James the brother of the 
Lord, Symeon, 6 τοῦ Κλεόπα, Jude the brother of James, 
Zacchaeus, Cornelius, Theophilus, Euodius, Ignatius, Annianus, 
Avilius, Linus, Clement, Timothy, John, “by me John,” 
Ariston, Strataias, Ariston, Gaius (Mycenae), Demetrius (Phila- 
delphia), Dionysius, Marathones (Ὁ), Archippus, Philemon, 
Onesimus, Crescens, Aquila, Nicetas, Crispus. It might 
perhaps afford interesting evidence as to the contents of the 
Canon. But its predominantly Biblical character hardly inspires 
confidence. 

Of a very different character to these curiosities of exegesis 


1 Thoma, Genesis des Johannes Evangeliums, Ὁ. 791. Thoma does not 
lay much stress on the point, ‘‘ Dies ware Pergamus, wenn die Sage der 
apost. Constitutionen von dem dortigen Bisthum des Gaius einen Grund 
und Werth hat.” 


§ 12.] BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EPISTLES Ixxxvii 


is the important contribution of Harnack to the interpretation 
of these Epistles (Zexte u. Untersuchungen, xv. First Series). 
Their chief importance lies in the information they afford with 
regard to a certain stage of the development of Church life and 
organization in the Asiatic province. The position of the Elder is 
unique. He is widely known. It is unnecessary for him to add 
his own name to the title which will serve to identify him. Τῇ 
he lives in Ephesus, the members of other Churches are his 
children (3. 4). He claims the right to lead them, and to know 
no greater joy than to hear that they are walking in the paths 
of truth. He claims his share in the work which has brought 
the Churches to their present state (ἃ ἠργασάμεθα, 2.8). Assured 
of being in the truth himself, he claims to judge whether others 
are ‘“‘ walking” in it, and have witness borne to them by it (3. 2, 3; 
2. 1-4; 3. 12). He does not hesitate to place his own witness 
by the side of the witness of the truth itself (37. 12). He uses 
the plural of authority (3. 9, 10, 12; 2. 8). As leader and as 
judge he threatens in the confident assurance that his personal 
intervention will put an end to what is wrong (3. 10). Froma 
distance he issues his commands to individuals and to Churches 
alike. The sphere of his authority is apparently large. Within 
it he administers praise or censure; he assigns punishment or 
reward without hesitation. He passes the most absolute judg- 
ments on prominent persons (3. 10, 12). He receives, through 
members of other Churches who travel, or through Evangelists, 
in full Church assembly (3. 6) or in other ways (2. 4), statements 
about the teaching and behaviour of Churches and of leading 
individuals (3. 3 ff., 12), and makes use of these reports in his 
letters. We are reminded of 5. Paul’s dealings with his Churches, 
and of his similar claims to authority and practical use of it. 
We may be surprised that thirty years after the death of Paul 
another should hold such a position in Asia. But this is no proof 
that the work of Paul had fallen to pieces. The testimony of 
Irenaeus and Polycarp proves the contrary. The position which 
has been described might well be held by the “ Elder” of whom 
tradition knows, and whom Papias describes as a disciple of the 
Lord. Such an one could maintain his claim to the position 
of patriarchal monarchic authority which we find presupposed 
in these Epistles. 

Harnack next turns to the evidence of the relation of the 
Elder to the travelling Missionaries and the Churches. The 
Third Epistle is written to accredit some travelling Evangelists 
to Caius ; the Second, to warn some Church or individual against 
certain travelling false teachers. The custom to which these 
facts point is neither new nor of very long standing (3. 7; cf. 
2. το, 11). The importance of such teachers is clearly seen if 


Ixxxvili THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [8 12. 


we compare 3. 8 with 2. 11. The writer does not identify 
himself with them, but he values them and their work highly 
(3. 6, ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ). Their work is missionary, not among those 
who are already brethren, from whom they ought to receive 
support, as they obey the Lord’s command. On their return to 
the place whence they set out they appear before the assembly of 
the Church and tell how they have prospered, and how they 
have been received (3. 6). Thus the Elder uses them as a 
means by which he can exercise control over his Churches. 
But a reaction is making itself felt against this supervision. 
Diotrephes regards the Elder and the travelling brethren as 
forming one party. He tries, apparently with success, to set 
his Church against them. He would withdraw it from this 
supervision which the Elder claims to exercise. He will not 
“receive” his messengers. And the majority of the Church 
apparently lean to the side of Diotrephes, though the Elder 
still has his friends (37. 15). The Elder cannot be sure that the 
letter which he wrote will ever reach the Church. Yet he feels 
sure of victory, if he comes in person. Here then we have to 
notice the leading of a single man. We have reached the 
beginnings of the monarchical Episcopate. We are in the heat 
of the struggle of the old patriarchal provincial mission organi- 
zation against the consolidation of the individual Churches, 
as they threw off all outside influence and developed the 
Episcopate. Diotrephes takes the lead in this movement. 
The Elder mistrusts the new movement, and tries to keep it 
under his control. He sees in it only the ambition of in- 
dividuals. Yet he fights for a failing cause. He is obliged 
to confess the dangers of false teaching being disseminated by 
the travelling Missionaries. By addressing the Church as Kupia 
he practically recognizes its independence. Harnack’s question, 
“Would Paul have done so?” is suggestive. 

Thus these two Epistles give us a valuable contribution to 
the history of an obscure period. We get a glimpse into the 
earlier stages of the development of the monarchical Episcopate. 
The differences which we find in Ignatius fifteen or twenty years 
later are noticeable. In his time monarchical Episcopacy is 
established throughout Asia. Each Church is independent ; it 
receives from outside only brotherly advice. The danger arising 
from heretical teachers who travel from place to place is still 
felt acutely. But travelling “prophets and teachers” and 
supervising “elders” have disappeared. The change which 
these Epistles show us in the making is already made in this 
region. 

It seems almost impertinent to criticize this admirable sum- 
mary of the position which forms the background of the two 


§ 12.] BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EPISTLES Ixxxix 


Epistles. Few would question the importance of its contribution 
to the understanding of their contents. It is, however, doubtful 
whether it points to exactly the right moment in the development 
of the organization of the Asiatic Churches. And its weakest 
part is the attitude which it represents the Elder as having 
assumed with regard to the new movement. It is clear that 
the old system is breaking down. The generation of those who 
could claim and exercise the kind of authority, recognized and 
accepted as valid but unofficial, which the “Elder” clearly 
regards as his by right, and which he is confident he can still 
maintain, is passing away. Those who have a right to speak 
and act in virtue of their connection with earlier days have 
almost dissappeared. And in his own case he can no longer 
be sure of his authority, if it is exercised only from a distance. 
The personal ambition of individual members of the Churches 
is getting beyond his control. In one case he cannot feel sure 
that his letter will reach those for whom it was intended. He is 
doubtful as to the reception which will be given to those who 
come with his own personal commendation. He is evidently 
afraid that false teaching, which he has succeeded in silencing 
in his own Church, if we may use the evidence of the First 
Epistle in this connection, will receive only too ready a welcome 
in a neighbouring Church. It is equally clear that an ambitious 
member of a Church can count on a widespread feeling of dis- 
content with the present informal arrangements and customs, 
which he can utilize to further his own views and perhaps 
interests. But is this the struggle of the local Churches to free 
themselves and set up a local Episcopate? Or is the Episcopate 
the means adopted to deal with the private ambitions of individual 
members of Churches who have made themselves prominent, 
and the danger which arose from the spread of various forms 
of teaching, and of division and dissension in consequence ? 
And what was the attitude of the Elder to the new movement ὃ 
Is he struggling against it? Or did he see in some such change 
of organization a way of meeting the danger which the old system 
could no longer control? Will Caius or Diotrephes be the first 
monarchical Bishop, of Pergamus or of Thyatira? 

The passages which Harnack quotes to show the connection 
of the Elder with the “ Bishops” of Asia certainly do not point 
to his having fought a losing battle against the new movement. 
The tradition which these passages embody has doubtless been 
modified in the light of later views about Episcopacy. But 
while this is almost certainly the case, it is going in the face of 
such evidence as we possess to represent the Elder as opposed 
to a movement with which he is always represented as being in 
close connection. 


fg 
ὸ 


xc THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [§ 19. 


The following passages may be quoted. They prove quite 
clearly the connection of the elders with the Episcopal move- 
ment in Asia so far as tradition is concerned. 

Mur. Fr. 1. το: “Cohortantibus condiscipulis et epis- 
copis suis.” 

Victorinus Petau. Schol. in Apoc. xi. 1: ‘‘Conuenerunt ad 
illum de finitimis provinciis omnes episcopi.” 

Jerome, de Vir. Illus. 9: “Scripsit euangelium, rogatus ab 
Asiae episcopis, aduersus Cerinthum.” Cf. Euseb. #. 2. 
vi. 14 (Clement): προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων. 

Augustine, Prologue to the Tractatus in Joann. : “ Compulsus 
ab Episcopis Asiae scripsit.” 

Clem. Alex. Quis Dives, 42: ἀπήει παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ 
τὰ πλησιόχωρα τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μεν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, 
ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα 
κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων. 

Most of these passages are too late to give satisfactory 
evidence ; all of them except the last may be later paraphrases 
of the zpotparévta ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων which is found in Clement, 
but which he has received from tradition. The passage from the 
well-known story of the Robber which Clement tells in the Quzs 
Dives proves that at a comparatively early date the name of the 
Elder was connected with the development of Church organiza- 
tion in Asia which resulted in the monarchical Episcopacy. His 
exact share in the process may not be determinable now. But 
the evidence of tradition which represents him as in thorough 
sympathy with the movement is too strong to ignore, when it 
is in no way contradicted by the evidence of the Johannine 
Epistles in themselves. The modification of Harnack’s inter- 
pretation of the “ background” which has been suggested above 
is at least as natural as his, and it is in conformity with what may 
be reasonably deduced from the earliest and most trustworthy 
traditions about the Elder as they are to be found in Clement. 
And on the whole it is better suited to the evidence of Ignatius, 
and his attitude towards the monarchical Episcopate. 


NOTES ON 1 JOHN. 


1-4. Introduction. 

1. ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς] What the writer has to announce about 
the Word of Life, the revelation of life, is no new discovery. 
The revelation began with creation. It was continued in the 
history of the nations and the People, in the work of Prophets, 
Psalmists, Legislators. It culminated in the earthly life and 
teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. The mystery, which is as old 
as creation, was gradually revealed, till it was completely mani- 
fested in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. The words περὶ 
τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς necessitate some such interpretation of the 
phrase. It cannot refer to the eternal, pre-existent nature of 
the personal Word, though in the writer’s conception this is 
no doubt included. The whole message of God’s revelation, 
as it has been gradually unfolded, is the object of the writer’s 
ἀγγελία. The mystery which he takes his part in “revealing” 
is concerned with the eternal reality underlying the phenomena 
apparent to sense-perception and needed to explainthem. What 
he has to say is one stage in its unveiling ; his words are part of 
a process of teaching which began when ‘God said, Let there 
be light.” Cf. Rothe, p. 18; part of his note may be quoted or 
paraphrased. ‘‘The thought of an original being, which has its 
object in itself, is indeed the most abstract thought to which 
human consciousness can reach; but yet it lies close to hand, 
and no one can dispense with it who examines attentively 
himself and his surroundings. That which falls under the 
cognizance of sense-perception shows itself to the careful observer 
to be untrue. But every intelligent man must feel the desire to 
find somewhere an existence which has not come into being, 
but which zs from eternity, and to be able to rest on this. This 
the Apostle has found. He cries triumphantly to his readers 
that he knows of a Being, transcending all that is transitory, the 
ground of what is temporal and finite. Such a reality can only 
be found in so far as it is revealed under material forms and 
enters into the world of matter. In Christ the writer claims to 
have found this eternal reality, which transcends the limits of 

I 


2 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [1. 1. 


the sensible and material. What he has seen in Jesus and 
heard from Him is to himself indubitable evidence of the truth 
of his claim.” This passage, which is really a paraphrase in 
more modern terms of thought of the Johannine conception 
of ζωή, does not, of course, explain by strict grammatical 
exegesis the meaning of the opening phrases of this Epistle, but 
it is an admirable expression of ideas which may reasonably be 
connected with them, and as such it deserves full consideration. 

ἀρχῆς) Anarthrous. Cf. Jn.i.1, vi. 64, xvi.4; Gn.i.1. That 
which is regarded by us as “beginning.” The anarthrous use 
of the word makes it denote ‘character, according to man’s 
apprehension,” rather than a definite fact or point of time. The 
parallels in Genesis and the Prologue of the Gospel exclude 
the possibility of a reference merely to the beginning of the 
Christian dispensation. For the writer’s use of ἀρχή, cf. note on 
Ms 7. 

ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν] The author justifies his claim to be able to 
announce ‘‘that which was from the beginning” on the fact 
that a revelation of it has been made under the conditions of 
time and space, so that it has become intelligible to finite 
understanding. The perfect has its full force. A. revelation 
has been made in terms which men can understand, and the 
results are abiding. What the writer and his contemporaries 
have heard and seen remains with them, so that they can make 
it known to others who have not themselves had the same 
privileges. 

The “hearing” may perhaps include the whole revelation, 
of the nature of God and His relation to the world, from the 
beginning. But if it is not confined to the earthly life of Jesus 
Christ, that is what the writer has prominently in view. 

ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς] The revelation has been made 
through nature and through man. All the human powers of 
perception are necessary to grasp its fulness, and can be used 
for that purpose. The τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς emphasizes the personal 
experience of the writer, and those whom he associates with 
himself by the use of the first person plural. The terms used 
in this preface can only be interpreted zaturally as a claim on 
the writer’s part to have been an actual eye-witness of the earthly 
life of Jesus Christ. It is not zmpossible to suppose that the 
writer uses them metaphorically of a spiritual vision, the com- 
pleteness of which can best be described under the metaphors 
of sense-perception. Such an interpretation, however, is forced 
and unnatural in the extreme. Clemen’s confession (ZV7TW 
vi. 281, 1905), that he can suggest no really satisfactory ex- 
planation of the words ai χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν on these lines, 
is significant. Nothing but absolute necessity could justify their 


11 NOTES ON I JOHN 3 


reference to “spiritual” perception. If on other grounds it is 
impossible to suppose that this Epistle, or other writings which 
cannot easily be separated from it, could have been written by 
an eye-witness of the life of Christ on earth, we should, of 
course, be compelled to accept this forced interpretation of the 
words; unless we admitted that the writer has put forward a 
false claim. But it is well to recognize that such a course is 
of the nature of a desperate expedient. Such a claim Ὁ ΡΣ 
naturally | be met with the ironical words of Philo (de Decalogo 
P- 195), ὦ οὗτος, ἃ parr εἶδες μήτ᾽ ἤκουσας, ὡς ἰδών, & ὡς ἀκούσας, ἃ: 
παρηκολουθηκὼς ἅπασιν, ἀφικόμενός μοι μαρτύρησον, which 
Windisch (Handbuch zum IVT. iv. 2, p. 105) quotes to illustrate 
the phraseology of this passage. There can be no doubt as to 
what is the natural interpretation of the writer’s words. These 
considerations hold good also against Karl’s idea of ecstatic vision 
(Johanneische Studien, p. 3). The hypothesis that the writer 
when using the first personal plural identifies himself (Ὁ) and 
his readers with the Christian body, some of whom had actually 
seen the “Lord,” is open to less objection, but is not really 
satisfactory. This use of the plural is quite natural in the 
passage which has sometimes been quoted from Irenaeus (v. i. 1), 
“247 auditum nostrum uocem etus percipientes.” Irenaeus is 
emphasizing the fact that the Incarnation was the only means 
of teaching men the truth about God. In the Introduction to 
Book V. he has reminded his readers that the Church tradition 
goes back to Christ Himself. And Christ alone could teach 
men, in that as God He knows the things of God, and as man* 
He can explain them intelligently to His fellow-men. Here the 
writer is contrasting his position with that of his readers. He 
will hand on to them what he and hits fellows have seen and 
heard, that they too, though they have not seen, may believe 
and share his joy. See Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the Apostles, 
p- 464; Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal, pp. 87-89. 

The passages quoted from Tacitus, Agricola, c. 45 (Mox 
nostrae duxere HHeluidtum in carcerem manus), and Augustine, 
Ep. 88. ὃ (nostri ocult ab armatts uestris calce et aceto extinguuntur), 
are not quite parallel. Tacitus, a member of the Senate, but 
absent from Rome at the time of the incident to which he 
refers, can naturally, addressing the public in a highly rhetorical 
passage, identify himself with the disreputable action of the 
body to which he belongs. Augustine, speaking as a Catholic, 
and addressing Donatists, can with equal propriety say, ‘“ We 
suffer persecution at your hands.” But here the writer, speaking 
as a Christian to Christians, is emphasizing what he and others 
with whom he identifies himself, have to give to the Christians 
to whom he writes. ‘“ What we have seen and heard we tell you, 


4 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN (rm. 


that ye may share our joy.” The “we” are clearly distinguished 
from the whole body of Christians. 

ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα] The ‘‘message” has so far been viewed in its 
permanent results. It has been “heard” and “seen” so that 
those who first received it have it as an abiding possession which — 
they can impart to others. Now the facts of its reception are 
presented in such a way (by the use of the aorist) as to emphasize 
their character. The different tenses are used with reference 
to the same object under different aspects. EEmphasis_is first 
laid on the results, then on the method. The aorist presents 
its object as a complete fact, or series of facts regarded as one 
whole, having a definite character. The witness is not only 
abiding, it is also satisfactory in kind. It rests on complete 
and intelligent use of adequate opportunities. There is no 
reason for restricting the object of the two aorists to the 
disciples’ experiences after the Resurrection. Such a distinction 
must have been more clearly marked if the writer intended his 
readers to grasp it. The special reference of ψηλαφᾶν to 
Lk. xxiv. 39 (ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου Kal τοὺς πόδας μου. . . 
ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε), or to the incident recorded in Jn. xx. 
26-29, where the word is not used, appears to be very doubtful. 
It is simpler to suppose that the same object is described in 
different ways, corresponding to the natural distinction in mean- 
ing between the perfect and aorist. But see Westcott, and 
comp. Ign. Smyr. 11. Cf. also Tert. Adv. Prax. xv., de An. 
xvii., de Pat. iil. 

ἐθεασάμεθα] If βλέπειν is to “look,” and δρᾶν to “see, 
θεᾶσθαι is to “ behold,” intelligently, so as to grasp the meaning 
and significance of that which comes within our vision. Cf. Mt. 
vi. 1; [Mk.] xvi. 14; Lk. vii. 24; Jn. i. 14, 38, iv. 35, xi. 45; Acts 
i. 11; Ro. xv. 24; 1Jn.iv. 12,14. In the LXX the word occurs 
only eight times, and in the later books; cf. 2 Ch. xxii. 6, and especi- 
ally 2 Mac. iii. 36 ἅπερ ἢν ὑπ’ ὄψιν τεθεαμένος. The word nearly 
always suggests careful and deliberate vision which interprets, 
rightly or wrongly, its object. The witnesses have not only 
seen and remembered. Their “seeing” was of such a character 
as to enable them to appreciate rightly the significance of what 
they saw. 

καὶ at χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν)] Cf. Lk. xxiv. 39, already 
quoted, and the note on ἑωράκαμεν. The Lord’s command in 
Luke, and the incident recorded by the writer in his Gospel, 
illustrate the meaning of the words. But their reference is wider 
than to any definite events between the Resurrection and the 
Ascension. 

ψηλαφᾶν is to grope or feel after in order to find, like a 
blind man or one in the dark; hence to andle, touch. The idea 


” 


1:1} NOTES ON 1 JOHN 5 


of searching sometimes disappears altogether. It may also be 
used in the sense of ‘‘ examine closely.” Cf. Polyb. viii. 18. 4 
(quoted by L. and S.), πᾶσαν ἐπινοίαν: Gn. xxvii. 12, μήποτε 
ψηλαφήσῃ με ὃ πατήρ pov (of Isaac): Dt. xxviii. 29, ἔσῃ ψηλαφῶν 
μεσημβρίας: Is. lix. 10, ψηλαφήσουσιν ὡς τυφλοὶ τοῖχον : Ps. cxill. 
15, χεῖρας ἔχουσι καὶ οὐ ψηλαφήσουσι : Job xx. το (A), αἱ δὲ χεῖρες 
αὐτοῦ ψηλαφήσουσιν ὀδυνάς. Here it naturally suggests all the 
evidence available for sense-perception other than hearing and 
sight. Possibly it emphasizes the reality of that with which 
they had been brought into contact, in opposition to the 
Docetism which may have characterized the views of the writer’s 
opponents. It certainly marks the intimate character of their 
personal intercourse with the Lord. Their opportunities 
included all that was necessary to make their witness ἀληθινή 
as well as ἀληθής, satisfactory in kind as well as accurate so far 
as it went. They were competent witnesses who spoke the truth. 
iy sig. xix 26: 

περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς] Dr. Westcott’s phrase “the revela- 
tion of life” probably gives most accurately the meaning of the 
words: the whole message which reveals, or which gives life. 
Compare Jn. vi. 68, ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου, and Jn. 111. 34, τὰ 
ῥήματα τοῦ Geov. The exact meaning of the genitive is doubtful. 
As a rule, when (6) Adyos is followed by a genitive, not of a 
person, the genitive expresses the contents of the message. Gi. 
Mt. xiii. 19 (τῆς βασιλείας), Ac. xill, 26 (τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης), 
XIV. 3, XX. 32 (τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ), xv. 7 (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) ; E Cont 
τὸ (ὃ τοῦ σταυροῦ) ; 2 Co. Vv. 19 (τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς) ; Eph. 
1. 13 (τῆς ἀληθείας) - Ph. ii. 16 (λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες) : Col. 1. 5 
(τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) ; τ Th. il. 13 (λόγον ἀκοῆς) ; 2 ΤΊ. il. 
15 (τῆς ἀληθείας) ; He. vi. 1 (τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ) ; Apoc. i. 3 
(τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας). On the other hand, where (τῆς) 
ζωῆς is added to a noun as a qualifying genitive it generally, 
though not always, denotes “life-giving,” or some cognate idea. 
Cf. Jn. v. 29 (ἀνάστασιν), vi. 35 (ὃ ἄρτος), 48, 68 (ῥήματα, cf. 63), 
Vill. 12 (τὸ pds); Ac. ii, 28 (dd0vs,=Ps. xvi. 11), iii, 15 (τὸν 
ἀρχηγόν), Vv. 20 (τὰ ῥήματα) ; Ro. ν. 18 ΠΡ ΘΟ Vi. 4 (καινότητι) ; 
Ph. ii. 16 (λόγον), iv. 3 (βίβλῳ) ; 2 Τί. 1. 1 (ἐπαγγελίαν), 15:1 
12 (τὸν στέφανον); τ P. ili, 7 (χάριτος) ; Apoc. il. 7 (τοῦ ξύλου), 
10 (τὸν στέφανον), ill. 5 (τῆς βίβλου), xi. I1 (πνεῦμα), xvi. 3 
(ψυχή), xvii. 8 (τὸ βιβλίον), xx. 12, 15, ΧΧΙ. 27, XXl. 6 (τοῦ ὕδατος), 
xxii. 1 (ὕδατος), 2 (ξύλον), 14, 19 (τὸ ξύλον), 17 (ὕδωρ). But the 
two meanings are not mutually exclusive. The message which 
announces life gives life (cf. Jn. v. 39). 

περί] What the writer has to announce concerns the word of 
life. He does not claim to handle the whole message. He has 
something to tell about it. On the bearing of this preparation 


6 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [I. 2. 


as the meaning of the whole verse, see the note on ὃ ἦν ar 
ἀρχῆς. 

2. For the use of parenthesis to emphasize or explain a 
specially important word, cf. Jn. xix. 35. In this parenthesis the 
emphatic word is ἐφανερώθη, which is repeated at the end of the 
verse. ‘The writer and his circle could bear their witness about 
the word of life, because the life had been manifested, to men 
and under conditions which made it possible for men to-appre-— 
hend its nature. ‘The reference is in quite general terms. 7 ζωή 
is never used to express the being of the (personal) Logos, or 
pre-existent Christ. 

According to Weiss, davepody never denotes the becoming 
visible of that which was before invisible, but the making clear 
of what was hitherto unknown (he compares Jn. 11. 11, 111. 21, vil. 
4, 1x. 3, xvil. 6). But the distinction is hard to maintain in view 
of the Johannine usage of verbs of sight to include the under- 
standing of that which falls under the ocular vision (cf. Jn. iii. 3). 
φανεροῦν may be used of all processes of making known, whether 
intellectual or sensible. 

ἀπαγγέλλομεν)] It is doubtful whether a distinction can be 
maintained between ἀπαγγέλλειν, “το repeat with reference to the 
source from which the message comes,” and ἀναγγέλλειν, “to 
report with reference to the persons addressed” (ver. 5). See 
ver. 3, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κ-τ.λ. 

τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον] For the double article, cf. ii. 25, and 
ver. 3, 7) κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα : JN. x. 11, 6 ποιμὴν ὃ καλός. The idea 
is first put forward generally, and then more particularly defined. 

It is strange to find it stated (Weiss, Comm. p. 28) that 
αἰώνιος is always used in the N.T. in the sense of endless dura- 
tion, or even that ζωὴ αἰώνιος denotes in S. John (as in S. Paul) 
“our everlasting further life (ezezges wetterleben) after the death 
of the body” (Karl, p. 6). It would be truer to say that it 
never has the sense of endless duration. On the other hand, 
it does not denote what is supra-temporal. It can only mean 
“belonging to the age” of which the writer is speaking or 
thinking, and so comes to mean possessed of the characteristics 
of that age. If the “ρὲ to come” is supra-temporal, then 
αἰώνιος denotes that the subject which it qualifies has this 
characteristic. 

“Spiritual” probably suggests its meaning most clearly in 
popular language. The words which it is used in the N.T. to 
qualify are: wip, ζωή, κόλασις, κρίσις, ἁμάρτημα (Mk. iil. 29, v.2. 
κρίσεως), σκηναί, χρόνοι, θεός, βάρος, δόξης, οἰκιά, ὀλεθρος, παρά- 
κλησις, κράτος, δόξα, ἐλπίς, σωτηρία, κρίμα, λύτρωσις, πνεῦμα, 
κληρονομία, διαθήκη, βασιλεία, εὐαγγέλιον. Of the 71 instances 
of its use in the N.T., 44 are passages in which it qualifies ζωή. 


I. 2, 3.] NOTES ON I JOHN 7 


Its meaning is best considered in the light of this fact. It is 
noticeable that in the Johannine Gospel and Epistles, where it 
occurs 23 times, it is never used in any other connection. 

ἥτις] The life manifested in Christ, to which His personal 
disciples could bear witness on the strength of what they had 
seen and heard, is eternal, zzasmuch as it is in union with the 
Father that it attains to its true realization. The distinction 
between ὅς and ὅστις, which disappears altogether in late Greek, 
can still, as a rule, be traced in the New Testament, where in all 
probability ὅστις is never a mere substitute for the relative. It 
either suggests a reason for what has been stated before, as here, 
or it introduces the designation of a class to which the ante- 
cedent belongs. (Cf. Mt. vii. 26, xiii. 52.) 

πρός] Cf. Jn. i. 2, ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and Dr. Westcott’s note on 
the differences of meaning between πρός and other prepositions 
denoting relations. Expressed in simpler language, the particular 
force of πρός would seem to be that it suggests a relation 
realized in active communion and intercourse. Cf. Mk. vi. 3, 
οὐκ εἰσὶν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ ὧδε πρὸς ἡμᾶς; ix. 19. The true life of 
the Son was realized in union and communion with the Father. 
By means of the Incarnation it was manifested to men. 

8. ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν] Resumption. The announce- 
ment rests on eye- and ear-witness. The difference in order, if 
it is not purely a matter of rhythm, may perhaps throw more 
emphasis on the earthly life of the Incarnate Logos, in which 
what was seen naturally takes precedence of what was heard, 
as contrasted with the wider description of revelation in ver. 1, 
where hearing must come before seeing. The treatment of 
minute differences in this Epistle, and in the Johannine writings 
generally, is a difficult question. There can be no doubt that 
very often they are either deliberate, and intended to convey 
some slight change of meaning, or the outcome of the exact 
train of thought which has led to the particular expression. 

καὶ ὑμῖν] To find in these words a proof that the writer is 
addressing a circle of readers different from those among whom 
he began his Apostolic work, and therefore a special appropri- 
ateness in their use by one who had changed the sphere of his 
activity from Palestine to Asia Minor, .is forced. (Cf. Zahn, 
Linleitung in das IVT. p. 566, “‘friiher an anderen Orten . 
jetzt im Kreise der Gemeinden, an welche der 1 Jo. gerichtet 
ist”; trans. iil. p. 358.) Such a thought could not have been 
conveyed to his readers by so obscure a hint. It is always 
dangerous to read into the words of this Epistle the things which 
any particular theory of its authorship make it desirable to find 
there. On the other hand, the words do not “show the readers 
of this Epistle to be those who are the hearers of all his 


8 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [1. 3. 


Apostolic preaching” (Weiss, p. 30). Their more probable 
significance is suggested by the following καὶ ὑμεῖς. What the 
eye-witnesses have heard and seen they announce to others as 
well, in order that they foo may share the fellowship which 
Apostles and disciples have so long enjoyed. 

κοινωνίαν ἔχητε] The exact phrase is found only in this Epistle 
inthe N.T. The writer is rather fond of the use of ἔχειν with 
a substantive to intensify the meaning of a verb. Cf. his use of 
it with ἁμαρτίαν, χρείαν, παρρησίαν, ἐλπίδα, ζωήν, κόλασιν. As 
contrasted with the simple verb, which merely expresses the fact, 
it may perhaps suggest the sense ‘“‘to have andenjoy.” Κοινωνεῖν 
is always used of active participation, where the result depends 
on the co-operation of the receiver as well as on the action of 
the giver. Cf. Philo, Zeg. ad Caium, § 4 (quoted by Grimm), τίς 
οὖν κοινωνία πρὸς ᾿Απόλλωνα τῷ μηδὲν οἰκεῖον ἐπιτηδευκότι; τ Co. 
X. τό, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστίν; It does not 
properly denote a merely passive sharing, as μετοχή can express, 
though the words are sometimes used interchangeably ; cf. 2 Co. 
Vi. 14, Tis yap μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ Kal ἀνομίᾳ ἢ Tis κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς 
σκότος; see T. 5. Evans in the Speakers Comm. on 1 Co. x. 16. 

καὶ... δέ] Cf. Jn. vi. 51, καὶ 6 ἄρτος δέ: 3 Jn. 12, καὶ ἡμεῖς 
δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν. It may be considered doubtful whether “the 
καί emphasizes, while the δέ serves as connecting particle.” The 
use Of καὶ... δέ would seem rather to develop and intensify a 
thought or idea. See Ellicott on 1 Ti. iii. 10. “ Fellowship, I 
say; and remember that the fellowship of which we speak, and 
which we enjoy, is no less than fellowship with God and His 
Son.” Comp. Jn. xvii. 11, 20-23. 

μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς κιτ.λ.] Fellowship with God became possible 
when Christ revealed Him to men as the Father, with whom 
His children could enter into communication. Such fellowship, 
2.6. that which is possible between parent and child, is only realized 
in and through Jesus Christ, the man whom God sent to make 
Him known. The title Ἰησοῦς Χριστός always emphasizes both 
ideas, of the historical life and human nature of Jesus of Nazareth, 
and of the Divine commission of God’s Messiah. And the use 
of the title “Son” (μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) emphasizes His capacity 
to make God known. ‘The writer can conceive of no adequate 
knowledge of God which can be apprehended by man except in 
so far as it is revealed in a real human life, by one who is an only- 
begotten Son of God. Onlya Son can reveal the Father. Only 
an only-begotten Son, who, so to speak, sums up in Himself all 
the qualities of His Father, which are completely reproduced in 
one heir, and not distributed among many children, is in a 
position to make such a revelation complete. The burden of the 
writer’s message is summed up in the last verse of the Prologue 


I. 3, 4.] NOTES ON I JOHN 9 


to the Gospel, “‘God hath no man seen at any time; God only 
begotten (or the only-begotten Son), who is in the bosom of the 
Father, He hath declared Him.” 

4. ταῦτα] The reference is most probably to the contents of 
the Epistle, ‘‘ already present to the writer’s mind.” ‘There are 
many instances in which it is a matter of dispute whether the 
writer, in using οὗτος, αὕτη, ταῦτα, τοῦτο, ἐν τούτῳ, ἐκ τούτου, διὰ 
τοῦτο, etc., intends to refer to what has preceded or what follows. 
Both usages are found in the Epistle, but the reference forward 
would seem to be his prevailing custom. Sixteen instances may 
be noted where the reference is to what follows (preceded by καί 
ΤῊ τι 3, ll. 23; 24; without cat, 0. 6, ii. 1, 8, τὸ; 16, iv. 2; Θ. τῷ; 
17, V. 4, 11, 14) as against seven where the reference to what 
preceded is at least probable (without καί, 11. 22, 26, iv. 6, v. 6, 
13, 20; preceded by καί, iv. 3). Here the reference is probably 
to what follows. The ταῦτα are not identical with the message 
described in ver. 3, nor are they contrasted with it. They are 
the part of it, or the things to be said in explanation of it, which 
it is expedient that the author should communicate in writing. 
Scriptio valde confirmat (Bengel). 

γράφομεν ἡμεῖς] Both words are emphatic. The αὐτόπται 
have always borne their witness by preaching or teaching. Now 
there is much that the survivors, or survivor, must write down. 
In this context ἡμεῖς must mean ‘‘ we who have seen and heard,” 
whether the seeing and hearing are to be interpreted literally or 
metaphorically. And the literal interpretation is undoubtedly 
the most natural. The word contains no claim to Apostolical 
authority, unless, indeed, none but Apostles could rightly claim to 
be witnesses of what has been described in vy. 1-3. And it does 
not justify the view that at the time of writing many still survived 
who had seen the Lord. The conditions are satisfied if even 
one survivor only is speaking in the name of those of whom he 
is the last representative, especially if he is addressing Christians 
among whom the later survivors had spent their last years. It 
points quite naturally to the ‘‘ Johannine” circle at Ephesus, but 
it does no more than point. It offers no proof. The plur. 
γράφομεν does not occur again in the Johannine Epistles. 

iva . . . ἡ πεπληρωμένη] For the resolved tense, cf. Jn. xvi. 24. 
Andtor the’sense, οἱ. Jn. xv.) Ti, Xvil. 12, iv: 36, {|| 20. che 
writer’s joy is increased the more his readers can realize the 
fellowship of which he has spoken, and to promote which is the 
object of his letter. 

ἡμῶν) It is very difficult to decide between the readings 
ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν. The former is supported by better MSS, and 
the latter may possibly be affected by assimilation to Jn. xvi. 24. 
On the other hand, ἡμεῖς is almost certainly the true text just 


10 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [1. 4. 


before, and the reading ὑμῶν offers a pointed contrast, “ψε who 
have seen must write, that you who have not seen may enter into 
full joy.” And it is a contrast which would not appeal to scribes. 
Perhaps, however, the ἡμῶν suits best the thought of the writer. 
He would not dissociate himself, and other teachers, from the 
common joy felt by all when his readers attain “‘fellowship.” In 
the spiritual harvest, sower and reaper rejoice together. 


2. εωρακαμεν pr. ο B? 40 : - καὶ ἀακηκοαμπεν 40 | τὴν ζωην] om. K | τὴν 
αιωνιον] om. boh-cod. 

3. aknkoaper] και εωρακαμεν ὃ harl. | καὶ 19] om. boh-cod. 

απαγγελλομεν] pr. kat ἐὲ k®** am. arm-codd. Thphyl. : καταγγελλομεν 
ΡΣ (Grera2)s 

και υμιν SABCP 7. 13. 40. 68. 180 harl. syr*? etP sah. arm. aeth. 
Did. Aug.] om. καὶ K L al. pler. cat. vg. arm-codd. cop. syr? % 
Dionys. Oec. Aug. 

και vers] om. καὶ sah, syr®h, 

και ἡ κοινωνια de] om. και DOh-txt.: om. de Οὗ P 13. 27. 29. 69. 81. 180 
ast* vo, sah. arm. (uid.) syr?. 

αὐτου] om. sah. 

4. ypapouer] scripsimus, am. harl. : ypapw A*? (62) arm-codd. boh- 

dd 


ἡμεῖς & A* BP 13 harl.* sah.] ὑμὶν A" al, fere. om. cat. vg. syr®™ cop. 
arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. 

ἡμῶν SB L 31. 39. 40. 42. 57. 76. 78. 95. 98. 99. 100. IOI. 105. 114. 
177. 190. rect 7 zlect yalect 2ne 4]8scr am, fu. harl. tol. sah. syr*" ar® Thphyl°™ 
Occ vuwy AC K P al. plu. vg*® demid. cop. syr? arm. aeth. Thphyl™* 
Oec***. 

πεπληρωμενη] - εν nu C*. 

wa] ut gaudeatis et vg. (om. gaudeates et am.). 


A. i. 5-ii. 27. First description of the two signs of fellow- 
ship with God, expressed negatively. First refutation of the 
twofold “lie.” The “ethical” and ‘‘christological” theses 
presented one after the other, without any definition of their 
mutual relations. 

I. 1. 5-ii. 17. Walking in light the true sign of fellowship 
with God (ethical thesis). Refutation of the one “lie.” 

1. i, 5-ii. 6. The thesis maintained in two parallel 
statements. 

(a) i. 5-10. The nature of God and the consequent relation 
of man to God. 

i. 5-10. Having stated that his object in writing is to enable 
his readers to enter into fellowship, and that the mutual fellow- 
ship of Christians leads onwards to that higher fellowship with 
God in Christ on which indeed it is based, the writer proceeds 
to deduce from the nature of God the conditions under which 
fellowship with Him is possible. He does so by setting aside 
three false pleas often urged by those who claim such fellowship, 
the denial of the bearing of moral conduct on spiritual com- 
munion, of the responsibility for sinful action, of the actual fact 


I. 4, 5.] NOTES ON I JOHN II 

BD 
of having sinned. With regard to the first two he states by way 
of contrast the provision made by God for overcoming the 
hindrances which would seem to prevent the possibility of 
fellowship with God, in the case of those who by their conduct 
or their confession refuse to shelter themselves behind such 
false pleas. The verses which follow contain a similar contrast, 
expanded into a different form in order to meet a difficulty 
which might be suggested by what has been said in this 
passage. 

5. The nature of God. God is light, and therefore only those 
whose conduct can be described as ‘‘ walking in light,” can enjoy 
fellowship with such a Being. 

In form the opening of the Epistle is closely parallel to that 
of the Gospel. This verse corresponds to Jn. i. 19, and it is 
introduced in exactly the same way (καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία). 
There also the idea of “witness” is taken up from the middle 
verses of the Prologue, just as ἀγγελία here takes up the 
ἀπαγγέλλομεν Of Vv. 2, 3. 

καί] The connection with what immediately precedes is not 
obyious. According to Dr. Westcott it must be found in the 
idea_of fellowship. ‘Fellowship must repose upon mutual 
knowledge” (p. 14). If we are to have fellowship with God 
and with the brethren, we must know what God is and what we 
are. False views on either subject must prove a fatal barrier 
to true fellowship. But see the preceding note. It would 
seem to be simpler to find the connection further back in the 
idea of the “‘announcement.” He makes his announcement, 
contained in the letter he finds it necessary to write (ver. 4), with 
a special purpose which he has now stated. And the burden 
of the announcement is this, that God is light, and men must 
walk in light if they would enjoy His fellowship. 

ἀγγελία] The simplest form of the word is chosen, as the 
writer wishes to describe its twofold aspect as a message /rom 
God τῶ those whom he addresses, in the following words. It 
is an ἀπαγγελία from God Himself, ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 
It is also an ἀναγγελία meant for those to whom he writes 
(καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν). The word may also suggest that the 
message contains a conception of God which men could not 
have formed for themselves without His help. It is a “‘revela- 
tion and not a discovery,” it is the message which has come from 
God to be delivered to men. 

φῶς ἐστίν] Anarthrous to express quality. God’s nature is 
best described as “light.” τὸ φῶς would have suggested light 
in some particular relation, cf. Jn. i. 5-9. φῶς describes His 
nature as He is, the description being true so far as it goes, 
though not complete. The primary idea suggested by the word 


12 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [I. 5. 
b ay 
in this context is ‘‘7//umination.” [ΤΌ is of the nature of light 
that it is and makes visible. God’s nature is such that He must 
make Himself known, and that knowledge reveals everything 
else in its true nature.’ That this thought is present here is 
suggested by the following section (ii. 3 ἢ). That God can be 
“known,” and by those to whom the author is writing, is one of 
the leading ideas on which he lays special stress. But in view 
of the use of the metaphor of light and darkness in the Bible 
generally, and especially in S. John, and of the immediate 
context in this Epistle, it is impossible to exclude the ethical 
meaning from the signification of the word here. The context 
shows that this is the idea which he is most anxious to em- 
phasize. The word must suggest the notes of Holiness and 
Purity as essential to God’s nature. The conditions of fellow- 
ship on which he insists are closely akin to the Levitical “ Be 
ye holy, for I am holy, saith the Lord.” The full meaning, 
however, of what is contained in words is not limited to the 
sense in which they were probably used and understood by the 
writer and his first readers. Jesus’ revelation of God as 
“Father” goes far beyond what was understood of it by the 
men of His own generation. For the more permanent meaning 
of the sentence, and the further ideas which it may be regarded 
as connoting, see Dr. Westcott’s note (p. 16f.); Findlay, p. 102. 
καὶ σκοτία «.t.A.] This is not a mere repetition of the 
sentence in negative form, in accordance with the writer’s love 
of double expression by parallel clauses, positive and negative. 
And it probably does not merely emphasize the “‘ perfect realiza- 
tion in God of the idea of light.” It emphasizes rather the 
completeness of revelation. God is not the ἄρρητος σιγή, or 
βυθός, of the more developed Gnostic systems, or the “ unknow- 
able” God of the Gnostic thought which preceded those 
systems. Though complete knowledge of God is impossible, 
He can be truly “known” here and now, under the conditions 
and limitations of human life. His nature is “light,” which 
communicates itself to men, made in His image, till they are 
transformed into His likeness. From the ethical side, the 
words also emphasize the conditions of fellowship. Walking 
in darkness must exclude from the fellowship of Him ‘fin whom 
is no darkness at all.” Conduct is not the matter of indifference 
that in some of the teaching of the time it was made out to be. 
With the order of ideas here, λόγος, ζωή, φῶς, σκοτία (Vv. 2, 5), 
comp. the same sequence in the Prologue to the Gospel 


(ii 3: 1: 


και 1°] om. boh-codd. 
εστῖν αὐτη NBCKLP 31. 40. 69. 105. 137 a c* al. fere.™ syr?** 
Thphyl. Oec.] αὑτὴ ἐστιν A 13 al, uix. mu. cat. arm. vg. syr8ch οὐ Ρ ms, 


I. 5, 6.] NOTES ON I JOHN 13 


ἡ αγγελια ἔξ Β ΚΙ, al. fere.” Cat. Did. Thphyl®™™ Oeco™™ vg, 
syr} arm. aeth.] ἡ επαγγελια C P 13. 31. 40. 69. 70. 73. 137 a8 al. uix™ 
sah. cop.(?) syr? Thphyl*** Oec**: ᾿ προ το, ἀξ ἢ (sic). An obvious 
assimilation to a commoner word by careless scribes. 

amr] map 75 64 (233) Ο (154). 

kat 20] om. boh-txt. 

αναγγελλομεν] ἀαπαγγελλομεν 18. 40. 69. 98. 100. 137. 180. 57lect gscr, 

ev avTw οὐκ εστιν NACKLP al. pler. cat. vg. arm. syr? Or. Did. 
Aug. ] οὐκ ἐστιν ev avrw B 13. 31 aeth. boh. (uid.) Or. Caes. 


6-10. The relation of man to God as determined by the 
fact that God is light. 

6. This revelation of God is not made to satisfy speculative 
curiosity. It bears directly on practical life. If truly appre- 
hended, it puts aside three false pleas often put forward by men 
to excuse their “‘ love of darkness.” 

The first of these pleas is the “indifference of moral 
conduct to spiritual communion.” Fellowship with God is 
impossible where men “walk in darkness.” The light trans- 
forms those who receive it. Those who continue to practise 
the works of darkness cannot be in fellowship with the light. 
To assert the opposite is to state what is contrary to the facts 
as we know them (ψευδόμεθα). Now that the revelation of God 
as light has been made by Jesus Christ, such language is a 
deliberate lie. And the actual conduct of those who make such 
a statement belies the claim they put forward to have fellowship 
with God. Their actions are not an expression in life of the 
moral ideal revealed by Jesus Christ. They “do not the truth.” 

ἐὰν εἴπωμεν] The form of the sentence introduces a not 
impossible, perhaps a not unlikely, contingency. And the use 
of the first_person plural, where the writer is thinking of his 
τεκνία, With whom he is in spiritual fellowship, and with whom 
he identifies himself as “‘compassed with infirmity” and not free 
from the dangers to which he knows them to be exposed, is 
an indication that the influence of his opponents had made itself 
felt both in thought and practice among those who were in the 
main still faithful to the ‘“‘truth” as he conceived it. Throughout 
the Epistle he writes under a pressing sense of danger. He 
is not wasting his weapons on purely hypothetical situations, of 
the realization of which he felt no serious apprehension. 

pet αὐτοῦ] the Father. The expression must have the same 
reference as the ἐν αὐτῷ of the preceding verse. 

ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν] Cf. 11. 11, (6 μισῶν) ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ 
περιπατεῖ : JN. Vill. 12, περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ: cf. Jn. xi. Ὁ: TO. 
The metaphor used by the Lord in the Gospel has already 
become part of the natural religious language of Christian 

The use of περιπατεῖν of conduct (cf. the Hebrew bn) is 


14 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [I. 6. 


common in S. Paul and S. John. In the Synoptic Gospels it is 
found only in Mk. vil. 5, περιπατοῦσιν. .. κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν. 
Cf. Ac. xxl. 21, τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν. For the LXX usage, cf. 
Pr. viii. 20, ἐν ὁδοῖς δικαιοσύνης περιπατῶ: Ec. xi. 9, περιπάτει, ἐν 
δδοῖς καρδίας σου ἄμωμος : and for the use of * walk” in connection 
with φῶς, Is. 11. 5, δεῦτε πορευθῶμεν TO φωτὶ κυρίου. 

For the false views combated in this verse we may compare 
Clem. Al. S¢v. iil. 4. 30, τοιαῦτα καὶ of ἀπὸ Προδίκου ψευδωνύμως 
Τνωστικοὺς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀναγορεύοντες δογματίζουσιν υἱοὺς μὲν φύσει 
τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ λέγοντες αὑτούς, καταχρώμενοι δὲ τῇ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ 
τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ζῶσιν ὡς βούλονται" βούλονται δὲ φιληδόνως: and 5. 40, 
ἀδιαφόρως ζῆν διδάσκουσιν : and later, πᾶς βίος ἀκίνδυνος ἐκλεκτῷ. 
Then, ΤΥ]. 2, τὸ πνευματικὸν θέλουσιν οἱ αὐτοὶ εἶναι ἀδύνατον 
φθορὰν καταδέξασθαι, κἂν ὁποίαις συγκαταγένωνται πράξεσιν. 

σκότει] The distinction can hardly be maintained in this 
Epistle between σκότος, “the concrete thing called darkness,” 
and σκοτία, “its abstract quality” (cf. 11. 11); or,as Dr. Westcott 
defines it, ‘‘darkness absolutely, opposed to light,” and “ dark- 
ness realized as a state.” The form σκότος occurs only here and 
in Jn. 11]. τὸ in the Johannine writings. 

οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν] Cf. Jn. 11. 21, ὃ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ἐν 
θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα, where the thoughts of this verse find 
expression in a positive form. Compare also Neh. ix. 33, ὅτι 
ἀλήθειαν ἐποίησας : and for the opposite expression, Apoc. xxi. 
27, ὃ ποιῶν βδέλυγμα καὶ ψεῦδος : ΧΧΙ]. 15, ὃ φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν ψεῦδος. 
To ‘do the truth,” or to “do a lie,” are natural expressions in 
the Johannine system of thought in which ἀλήθεια has a far wider 
signification than that with which its modern connotation 
familarizes us. The Johannine usage corresponds with the 
meaning of the Hebrew nx, which denotes reliability, faithfulness, 
and therefore, when it refers to what is spoken, ¢vuth. We may 
compare the phrases dN) TDN AwY, Gn. xxiv. 49, xlvil. 29; 
Jos. ii. 14; 2S. xv. 20; and npNa ba, eK. i 4s iG eee 
CAR 5’ ΣΧ Ὁ. The “truth” has no exclusive reference to 
the sphere of the intellect. It expresses that which is highest, 
most completely in conformity with the nature and will of “God, 
in any sphere of being. In relation to man it has to do with 
his whole nature, moral and spiritual as well as intellectual. 
‘Speaking ” the truth is only one part of “doing” the truth, 
and not the most important. To “do the truth” is to give 
expression to the highest of which he is capable in every sphere 
of his being. It relates to action, and conduct and feeling, as 
well as to word and thought. 


eav|] +yap A. 
τω σκοτει] τα σκοτια HS (Ψ). 


1.7} NOTES ON I JOHN 15 


7. ““Walking in the light,” z.e. the conscious and sustained 
endeavour to live a life in conformity with the revelation of God, 
who is “light,” especially as that revelation has been made 
finally and completely in Jesus Christ, is the necessary condition 
of fellowship. Where this condition is fulfilled, fellowship is 
real. Toclaim it is no lie. Comp. “The righteous. . . will 
live in goodness and righteousness, and will walk in eternal 
light” (Book of Enoch xcii. 4). ν 

αὐτός ἐστιν] The contrast is significant. Men “walk” in 
light, God “is” init. Findlay, pp. too—102. 

pet ἀλλήλων] The strict antithesis to ver. 6, “if we claim 
fellowship with God, while our conduct does not correspond to 
the claim, we lie,” would naturally be, ‘‘if we walk in light we 
can claim fellowship with God.” This has led to the alteration 
of ἀλλήλων in some texts, αὐτοῦ or cum Deo being substituted 
for it. These readings are clearly attempts at simplification. 


The writer follows his usual custom. Instead of contenting» 


himself with an exact antithesis, he carries the thought a step 
further. Fellowship among Christians ‘‘ shows the reality of that 
larger spiritual life which is life in God” (Wstct.). It is based on 
fellowship with God, and it is the active realization of that 
fellowship. As Christians enter into fuller fellowship with each 
other, the more fully they come to live the life “in God” into 
which they have been born again. per ἀλλήλων cannot mean 
“we with God, and God with us” (Aug. Ew. etc.), nor can it 
mean that we share with each other the Divine indwelling 
(Karl), though mutual fellowship is the first step in the path 
which leads to that. 

καί] And where the endeavour to “walk in light” is carried 
out (it depends on the exercise of man’s will whether or not the 
endeavour is made), the removal of sin, which hinders fellowship 
with God, is possible in consequence of what the Son of God 
has gained for men by His human life, the power of which 
has been set free by death so as to become available for all 
men. 

τὸ αἷμα κ-τ.λ.] As Westcott has pointed out, the significance 
of “blood” in Jewish thought is most clearly expressed in Ly. 
xvii. 11. The blood “atones” through the life which is said to 
be “in” the blood. The power of Christ’s life, freely rendered 
to God, throughout His life and in His death, and set free by 
death for wider service than was possible under the limitations 
of a human life in Palestine at a definite date, is effective for the 
gradual (καθαρίζει) removal of sin in those who attempt to realize 
their union with God in Him. The.use of καθαρίζει determines 
the sense to be the vemoval of sin rather than the cancelling of 
guilt. As ritual cleanness was the condition of approach to God 


16 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [Ew 


under the Jewish sacrificial system, so the “ blood” of Christ 
cleans men’s consciences for God’s service and fellowship. See 
Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the Apostles, p. 469. 

καθαρίζει] In the Synoptists the word is used especially of 
cleansing from leprosy (see also its use in Mt. xxiii. 26, τὸ ἐντός : 
Lk. xi. 39, τὸ ἔξωθεν). In the Fourth Gospel it does not occur, 
but the adjective καθαρός is found in the Discourses of the Upper 
Room (xill. 10, 11, xv. 3). In Acts it is used in the sense of 
“pronouncing clean” (x. 15, xi. 9), and also (xv. 9) with ras 
xapos: cf. 2 Co, vil. 1; Eph v. 26; Tit. i. τὴ" Hemera: 
23, x. 2; Test. Rub. iv. 8. In the LXX it is found as the 
equivalent of ἽΠ and 7pn in the senses (1) to cleanse, (2) to 
pronounce clean. The present tense may point to the νίψασθαι, 
of which even ὃ λελουμένος has frequent need in his walk through 
a soiling world (Jn. xill. 10). ‘“Docet hic locus gratuitam 
peccatorum veniam non semel tantum nobis dari, sed perpetuo 
in ecclesia residere ” (Calvin). 

Ἰ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] Cf. iv. 15, v. 5; He. iv. 14 (ἀρχιερέα 
μέγαν... Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ). As man He gained the 
power to help men. As Son of God His help is effective. 

πάσης ἁμαρτίας] Sin in all its forms and manifestations ; 
Mt, ati. gr. “CE Ja. a. 2) πᾶσα, yapa: Epht Wee 
σοφία: and for the singular, 1 Jn. iii. 4, 8, 9. The writer is 
apparently thinking of sin as an active power, showing itself in 
many forms, rather than of specific acts of sin. Weiss’ inter- 
pretation ‘‘all sins,” 2.6, not only of the pre-Christian period of a 
man’s life, but also those committed in the course of Christian 
life, would require the plural. But in general sense it is correct, 
and rightly throws the emphasis on πάσης, sin in whatsoever 
form it may manifest itself. Karl’s limitation of the meaning to 
sins committed before men became Christians (“ ἃ. h. von der 
vor dem Christentum begangenen”), is not justified by the words 
used by the writer. And the reason suggested, that ‘‘ post- 
Christian” sins require also intercession (/ohannische Studien, 
pp. 18, 82), is a curious instance of the perversion of an excellent 
principle, that of interpreting the Epistle by the help of the 
Epistle itself. 


de] om. 29. 66** harl.* boh-txt. [ἐστιν] ambulat, boh-txt. 

per adAnov ἐξ Att BCKL Petc.] mer αὐτου A* "4 tol, Clem. Tert. 
Did. : czm Deo, harl. 

του υἱου αὐτου ιῦ xv A? (33) 75 192 (18). 

inoou 8 BC P 29. 69** asct fu. syrschetp txt sah, boh=txt. arm. δίῃ το 
Clem. Fulg.] +Xpicrov A K Lal. pler. cat. vg. boh-codd. syr? c* aeth?P 
Tert. Aug. Bed. 

του viov αὐτου] om. aeth. Aug. (semel) 7°17. 

καθαριζει] καθαρισει 5. τοῦ. 13!ect rqlect a].? scr; καθαριεῖ 6. 7. 29. 660** 
Aug. (015) : purgabit, sah. cop. 


I. 8.] NOTES ON I JOHN 17 


8. The second false plea denies the abiding power of sin as a 
principle in one who has committed sins. To those who hold 
such a view, sin ceases to be of any importance. It is merely a 
passing incident which leaves behind it no lasting consequences. 
The plea rests on self-deception. It can only be maintained by 
those who shut their eyes to the teaching of experience, in them- 
selves or in others. And they lead themselves astray. The 
consequences must be fatal unless men acknowledge their 
mistake and retrace their steps. 

ἐὰν εἴπωμεν] For the general idea, cf. Pr. xx. 9, τίς παρρησιά- 
σεται καθαρὸς εἶναι ἀπὸ ἁμαρτιῶν, and xxvill. 13, 6 ἐπικαλύπτων 
ἀσέβειαν ἑαυτοῦ οὐκ εὐοδωθήσεται. 

ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν] Cf. πίστιν ἔχειν, to have faith, as an active 
principle working in us and forming our character. To “have 
sin” is not merely a synonym for to commit sins. This is 
necessitated by the contrast demanded by ver. τὸ between 
ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν and οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν. “Sin” is the principle 
of which sinful acts are the several manifestations. So long asa 
Christian commits sins, sin is an active power working in him; 
and its power still remains after the forgiveness of sins which he 
received at his baptism. To deny this is to refuse to accept the 
teaching of experience. 

In the N.T. the use of the phrase ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν is confined 
to this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel (ix. 41, xv. 22, 24, xix. 11). 
The meaning of the phrase in the Gospel has been raised as an 
objection to the interpretation given above. It is maintained 
that in the Gospel it has a quite definite sense, and that it 
“specifically denotes the guiltiness of the sin” (Law, Zhe Tests 
of Life, p. 130); and it is suggested that the meaning here must 
be, “If we say that we have no guilt, no responsibility for the 
actions, wrong in themselves, which we have committed.” It 
is probably true that as compared with the simple verb the 
phrase accentuates the ideas of guilt and responsibility. And 
in the passages in the Gospel where the phrase occurs these 
ideas are prominent. But they are contained in the Hebrew 
conception of sin, emphatically developed in the teaching of 
the N.T., rather than in the one expression as opposed to the 
other. He who has committed sin is responsible for his action, 
just as much as he who “has sin” and who feels, or should 
feel, in himself the presence of a power which manifests itself 
in his sinful acts. And though the idea of guilt is prominent 
in the use of the phrase in the Gospel, especially in xv. 22, 
where the antithesis, ‘“‘ Now they have no excuse for their sin,” 
must be noticed, it does not exhaust the meaning of the phrase 
as used there. Cf. 1x. 41, εἰ τυφλοὶ ἦτε οὐκ ἂν εἴχετε ἁμαρτίαν. 
If they had been as ignorant, and conscious of their ignorance, 

2 


18 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [I. 8. 


as the man whom they had condemned, they might have learned, 
and whatever ‘“‘sin” they had would have lost its power. But 
their refusal to see the truth when it was presented to them, 
and their insistence that they knew, in spite of this, gave their 
sin an abiding power over them. Henceforth it could prevent 
any possibility of their seeing the truth. And the same idea 
is present in ch. xv. The rejection of Christ’s words by His 
opponents had given sin a power over them, which it could 
never have had but for their missing the opportunity of better 
things. As it was, they not only had ‘‘sin” as an active power 
established in them and working its will, but they had no 
excuse to offer for its presence there (πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν περὶ 
τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, which cannot mean “they have no excuse 
for their guilt,” and which is not merely antithetical but adds 
a further point). This meaning is especially clear in ver. 24. 
The “sin” which had got its hold, in consequence of their 
rejecting Him in spite of what He had done among them, had 
conceived and brought forth hate (νῦν δὲ καὶ ἑωράκασιν καὶ 
μεμισήκασιν is the contrast to ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν). And the 
phrase may possibly be used with something of the same 
meaning in xix. 11, 6 παραδιδοὺς. . . μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει, though 
in this case the simpler meaning “the greater guilt” is more 
plausible. But even here the thought may be of the power 
which sin acquires over him who admits it. Sin could now 
work with more fatal power in the High Priest, who knew the 
relative power of God and of the Roman governor, and who 
incited him to his crime against justice, than in Pilate, who in 
spite of his greater power was more ignorant than the Jew. 
Even if the phrase meant no more in the Gospel than the 
denotation of the ‘‘guiltiness of the agent,” it would not 
necessarily bear exactly the same meaning in the Epistle. The 
writer likes to put new meaning into the phrases he repeats. 
But probably, though the exact zzance may be different in the 
two writings, the fundamental idea expressed is the same. It is 
the special characteristic of the writer that he loves to use his 
phrases, of which his store is but scanty, with slightly different 
shades of meaning. 

ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν] The phrase, as contrasted with the simple 
πλανώμεθα, emphasizes the agent’s responsibility for the mistake. 
The evidence is there; only wilful blindness refuses to accept 
it. We have no excuse for the sin which we “have,” in spite of 
our denial of the fact. See Findlay, p. 106. 

πλανᾶν always suggests the idea of leading astray from the 
right path (cf. il. 26, ui.\7; Jn. vil 12; Apoc. 11. 20) xnegmeuey: 
The mistake must have fatal consequences until we lead ourselves 
back into the way of truth. 


I. 8, 9.] NOTES ON I JOHN 19 


καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια κιτιλ.] The statement that we have not sin, shows 
that those who make it have not “truth” working in them as an 
inner and effective principle. For the meaning of ‘‘truth,” cf. 
note on ver. 6. It is more than the sense of truth, uprightness 
and honesty of self-examination and self-knowledge (cf. Rothe, 
ad loc.). It can be regarded both objectively and subjectively, 
either as something that can be done (ver. 6), an external 
standard in accordance with which actions must be shaped, or 
as an inner principle, working from within and moulding a man’s 
inner life. 


οὐκ εστιν SB Lal. pler. sah. syr? aeth. Tert. Oec.] post nuw ACK P 5. 
12. 91. 05. 09. 137. 180 4° al.7sct cat. τὴν vg. syrParm. Thphyl. ΟΥ̓: 
Leif. Aug. Probably an accidental alteration, possibly due to Latin in- 
fluence, and, at any rate, naturally maintained in Latin authorities. 


9. The existence of sin, even in those who have entered 
the Christian community, is a patent fact. But it does not 
make impossible that fellowship with God which sin interrupts. 
In those who acknowledge the fact, God has provided for its 
forgiveness and removal. 

πιστὸς καὶ δίκαιος] Not “(Δ decause He is just,” and 
justice in His relation to men includes the necessity of His 
fulfilling the promises which He has made. The two adjectives 
are co-ordinate. God’s faithfulness is shown in the fulfilment 
of His promises. He is just, in that, in spite of men’s failures 
to fulfil their obligations, He remains true to the covenant which 
He made with them; and this includes forgiveness on certain 
conditions. It is probable that throughout the Bible this idea 
of faithfulness to His covenant in spite of man’s unfaithfulness, 
is the primary signification of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Cf. He. x. 23, 
πιστὸς 6 ἐπαγγειλάμενος, and Ro. 111. 25, εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ 
τοῦ θεοῦ. 

ἵνα] Defines the sphere in which the faithfulness and the 
justice are shown. In view of the usage of the writer, and 
the frequency of the definitive ἵνα in papyrus documents, it 15 
difficult to maintain the “telic” force of ἵνα throughout the 
N.T. It may be worth while to collect (roughly) the passages 
in the Johannine books τς the ἀπ {ΞΟ τ Oe has given way 
to the definitive: Jn. i. 27, ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω : il. 25, οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν 
ἵνα τις μαρτυρήσῃ : iv. 47: ἠρώτα ἵνα cera Visi is ἄνθρωπον οὐκ 
ἔχω. -. ἵνα βάλῃ: Vi. 29, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἔργον ἵνα πιστεύητε: 


20, τοῦτο ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα. .. Wa... μὴ ἀπολέσω: εἴ. 40; Viii. 
56, ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ: ix. 22, συνετέθειντο. .. ἵνα ἐάν τις αὐτὸν 


ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστὸν ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται: ΧΙ. 50 Ξ ἵν 

ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστι ey EO SA : ΣΙ. 50, συμφέρει... ἱνα 
~ 4 

ἀποθάνῃ: δεδώκεισαν. . . ἐντολὰς ἵνα ἐάν τις γνῷ. .. μηνύσῃ: 

) γ τ βὴ Hf] 


20 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [I. 9. 


ΧΙ. 23, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ dpa ἵνα δοξασθῇ : xill. 1, ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ dpa 
ἵνα μεταβῇ : 2, βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα παραδοῖ: 29, λέγει 
αὐτῶ . . . lWwadw: 34, χὰ καινὴν δίδωμι ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε: xy. 12; 


αὕτη ἐστὶν ἣ ἐντολὴ... ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε: 13, μείζονα ταύτης. ... 
ἵνα τ ς- τὴν Ψυχὴν ... OF: XVI. 2, ἔρχεται dpa iva was 6 
ἀποκτείνας ὑμᾶς δόξῃ: 7» συμφέρει ΠΑ: ἵνα Fens ἀπέλθω: 30," οὐ 
χρείαν ἔχεις Wa... ἐρωτᾶ: 32, ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ ἐλήλυθεν ἵνα 
σκορπισθῆτε: XVil. 3, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν: 
15, ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς: 24, θέλω Wa... Gow: Xvill. 20, ἔστι δὲ 
συνήθεια Li, AVG τ: ἀπολύσω: KK. 21: ἠρώτησαν ele ave 
κατεαγῶσιν: 38, ἠρώτησεν. .. ἵνα ἄρῃ. 1 Jn. il, 27, οὐ χρείαν 
ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ : 111. I, ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν... ἵνα 
κληθῶμεν: 11, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία. .. ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν : 23, αὕτη 


3 \ ΕἸ 3 Ν 3 ay , 2 4 , 
ἐστὶν ἡ Ξ αὐτοῦ ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν : IV. 17, ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται 
/ 3, 

. ἵνα παρρησίαν ἔχωμεν : 21, ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχομεν . .. 
ἵνα... ἀγαπᾷ: V. 3, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἣ ἀγάπη... va... τηρῶμεν: 
τό οὐ Ne wo ἵ > f Jn 6 4 2 Ν Εἰ τὰ , a 

, ov... λέγω Wa ἐρωτήσῃ. 2 Jn. 6, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα 

“ 7 4 ΄σ fol 
περιπατῶμεν, αὕτη ἡ ἐντολή ἐστιν - +. ἵνα περιπατῆτε. 3 Jn. 4, 
μειζοτέραν τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χαράν, ἵνα ἀκούω. Apoc. Vi. 11, ἐρρέθη 


αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται: ΧΗ. 12, ποιεῖ. .. ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν: 
13, ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα πῦρ Tro... καταβαίνειν: 15, 
ποιήσῃ [γα Ὁ. ἀποκτανθῶσιν: 16, ποιεῖ πάντας. .. ἵνα δῶσιν 


αὐτοῖς [καὶ] ¢ ἵνα μή τις δύνηται ἀγοράσαι: xix. 8, ἐδόθη αὐτῇ iva. 
περιβάληται. Though a few of them might possibly be inter- 
preted differently, there is abundant evidence to establish the 
usage. 

ἀφῇ} The determination of the meaning of this word from 
the sense of “send away” is tempting but unsound. Those 
who can remember the light which was thrown, at least for 
themselves, on the whole subject of forgiveness, by F. D. 
Maurice’s insistence on the view that ἀφιέναι means to ‘‘send 
away,” and not to let off a penalty or to cancel a debt, will 
always be grateful for what he said on the subject. But though 
right in substance, it must be confessed that linguistically his 
interpretation cannot be defended. The application of the word 
to “sin” is almost certainly suggested by the metaphor of the 
remission or cancelling of debts. At the same time it must be 
remembered that, as in the case of most metaphorical expressions 
which are used to emphasize some particular point of similarity, 
in respect of which comparison is possible, it is confusing to 
transfer all the associations of the metaphor to the new subject 
which it is used to illustrate. As applied to “sins” it suggests 
the cancelling of the outstanding debt, the removal of that 
barrier to intercourse between man and God which is set up by 
sin. And the transaction must be real and not imaginary. God 
cannot treat it as non-existent, unless it has been actually or 


I. 9, 10.] NOTES ON I JOHN 21 


potentially removed or destroyed. ἀφιέναι is used in the N.T. 
in the sense of “remission” in the following passages: with 
ὀφείλημα or ὀφειλή, Mt. vi. 12, xviii. 32: with παράπτωμα, 
Mt. vi. 14, 15; Mk. xi. nee with ἁμαρτία ΟΥ “ἁμάρτημα, Mit 
meee. 6, ΣΙΪ: 31; ΜΠ πὶ τ᾿ 1 Ὁ. Io, 111. 28, ἵν 12; ky." 20, 
21:22; 24, Vil. piedee ΧΙ Che Ἐν. Ζ, 4; Jn. oe 23 ; hae: Ve ΤΕΣ: 
1 Jn. 11. 12: with τὸ δάνιον, Mt. xviii. 27; without a direct object 
(or subject), Mt. xii. 32, xvili. 21, 35; Lk. xxiii. 34, also in Mk. 
xi. 25, Lk. xii. 10; with ἡ ἐπίνοια τῆς καρδίας, Ac. viii. 22; with 
ἀνομία, Ro. iv. 7 (=Ps. xxxiil. 1). The use of κρατεῖν in Jn. 
Xx. 23 must be interpreted in the light of this usage of ἀφιέναι. 
It stands by itself in the N.T. 
καθαρίσῃ . . . ἀδικίας) Cf. Jer. xl. 8, καὶ καθαριῶ αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ 
πασῶν τῶν ἀδικιῶν αὐτῶν ὧν ἡμάρτοσάν pot. In ἀφιέναι the 
metaphor is borrowed from the cancelling of debt, but the 
idea which the metaphor is used to illustrate is ethical. There 
is therefore no need to equate the meaning of καθαρίζειν to 
that of ἀφιέναι. It should certainly be interpreted in an ethical 
sense. 
πάσης ἀδὶκίας] Cf. πάσης ἁμαρτίας. Injustice in whatever form 
it may manifest itself. ἀδικία denotes injustice, failure to main- 
tain right relations with other men or with God. If God is 
faithful to forgive sins according to His promise, He is also 
just,” not only to fulfil the terms of His covenant, but also to 
provide for the cleansing or removal of those injustices of which 
men have been guilty in their relations with God or with other 
men. 
εαν7- δὲ 74%! (216). 
nuw]om. arm-codd. sah. 
aquaprias (2°) A BC K L P al. pler. m tol. vg™f Cyp. Hier. Aug. 
Thphyl. Oec.]+nuov SC 5. 26. 68. 69. 98 as 5. vg. syr¥tt sah. boh- 


txt. arm. aeth. Dam. Aug. Hier.: ea boh-cod.: +acas 7414? (210). 
nuas]om. C | ἀδικιας] pr. ἀμαρτιας καὶ Ο (154). 


10. The third false plea is the denial of the fact of having 
committed sin. Though a man may allow the abiding power of 
sin as a principle in those who have sinned, or the existence of 
sin in Christians after forgiveness, he may yet deny that he has 
himself sinned. ‘To do so is to deny the truth of God’s revela- 
tion. Apart from actual statements in Scripture (cf. Ps. xiii. 
(xiv.) 3, lii. (liii.) 2), the whole plan of God’s dealings with men 
is based on the assumption that all have sinned. ‘To deny the 
fact in our own case is to make Him a liar, since it is implied 
in His whole message to us. His word can have no place in 
the development of our being. 

ἡμαρτήκαμεν͵] have committed no act of sin, of which the 
consequences remain. 


22 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [I. 10-11. 1. 


ψεύστην] Cf. Jn. viii. 44, 55; 1 Jn. 11. 4, 22, iv. 20. And for 
the exact phrase, 1 Jn. v. Io. 

ὁ λόγος] Like the truth, the word can be viewed objectively 
or subjectively, an external message or an inward force effective 
and active in men. There is, of course, no reference to the 
personal Logos, though the word implies a more personal 
relationship than ἀλήθεια. It suggests the speaker. Cf. Jn. viii. 
37, ὃ λόγος 6 ἐμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν : He.iv. 12; 78. 1. 2τ; 1 Τη. 11. 14. 

οὐκ ἐστιν] post ἡμιν 69. 137 a®* arm. syr? arm. Thphy]l. 
nuw)t habitans, arM-OSC. 


(4) ii. 1-6. Further statement of the conditions of fellowship. 
Knowledge and obedience. 

1, 2. The remedy for sin (in the case of those who acknow- 
ledge that they have sinned, in contrast with 1. ro). 

3-5a. Obedience the sign of knowledge. 

5b, 6. Imitation the sign of union. 

1. The recognition of the universality of sin, from which even 
Christians are not actually free, might lead to a misconception of 
its true character. Men might easily pass too lenient judgments 
on its heinousness, and ignore the responsibility of those who 
give way to its promptings. If it is impossible for any one, even 
the Christian, to escape sin, why condemn with such uncom- 
promising severity failures for which men cannot reasonably be held 
responsible? Why strive so earnestly against what is inevitable? 
The writer hastens to warn his readers against such conclusions. 
Sin is wholly antagonistic to the Christian ideal; his whole 
object in trying to set out’ that ideal more clearly is to prevent 
sin, not to condone it. YHis aim in writing is to bring about 
“‘sinlessness” (iva μὴ ἁμάρτητε). And the Christian scheme 
includes means by which such an aim may be gradually realized. 
Whenever any one gives way to any act of sin, such as must 
interrupt the intercourse and fellowship between men and God, 
which it is the great aim of Christ’s work to establish, the means 
exist by which this fellowship may be restored. Christians have 
an “advocate” with the Father (πρός : cf. i. 2), who is able and 
willing to plead their cause, to present their case truly and com- 
pletely, to transact their business, to speak for them, if non-legal 
phrases convey the meaning more clearly. And His mediation 
is addressed to one who is Father of both Advocate and suppliants, 
as eager as they can be that the fellowship should be restored, on 
the only terms on which such fellowship caz be restored, the 
removal of the sin which has interrupted it. 

texvia μου] The ‘‘ Elder,” who is perhaps the representative of 
a generation which has almost passed away, naturally thinks of 
the younger generation to whom he is speaking as his “ children.” 


II, 1.] NOTES ON I JOHN 23 


And when he wishes to emphasize the importance of the thought 
which he has to teach, he naturally falls into the language of 
affectionate endearment. Whether he is thinking of them as his 
‘sons in the faith,” who owe their conversion to Christianity to 
his ministry, is uncertain. We do not know the historical 
circumstances of the case with sufficient accuracy to determine. 
ταῦτα] must refer to the contents of the whole Epistle, already 
present to the mind of the writer, rather than to the preceding 
chapter or any part of it, though to some extent the main 
teaching of the Epistle has been already declared in outline. 

iva μὴ ἁμάρτητε] The aorist suggests definite acts of sin rather 
than the habitual state, which is incompatible with the position 
of Christians who are in truth what their name implies. 
Those who are bathed need not save to wash their feet; cf. 
ny iil.. TO. 

καὶ ἐάν] The sentence introduced by these words is not 
contrasted with the preceding, but added to it “as a continuous 
piece of one message.” The writer’s object is to produce 
“‘sinlessness.” And this is not a fruitless aspiration after an 
ideal which cannot possibly be realized, for the means of dealing 
with the sin which he desires to combat are at hand. 

παράκλητος] Most of the information which is of real import- VA 
ance in determining the meaning and usage of this word in the 
Johannine writings (it is not found elsewhere in the N.T.) is to 
be found in the notes of Wettstein and Westcott. The article 
on the word in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (iii. 665) gives a 
very clear summary of the evidence; cf. also Julicher’s shorter 
statement in the Lucyclopaedia Biblica (111. 3567). 

The passages where it occurs in the N.T. are Jn. xiv. 16, 26, 
xv. 26, xvl. 7; 1 Jn. ii. τὸ The meaning ‘‘advocate” is clearly 
needed in the Epistle, it is possible in xv. 26, and probable in 
xvi. 7. In xiv. 16, 26 it must have the wider and less technical 
meaning of one called in to help. 

As regards the use of the verb παρακαλεῖν, it has the sense of 
comfort in the LXX (cf. Gn. xxxvil. 35, where it is used with 
reference to Jacob) and in the N.T. (cf. Mt. v. 4, ὅτε αὐτοὶ 
παρακληθήσονται, where the influence of Is. Ixi. 2, παρακαλέσαι 
πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας, is clear). The use of παράκλησις in the 
sense of comfort is also well established (cf. 2 Co. i. 3, 4, διὰ τῆς 
παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα). But its original meaning was to 
send for, summon to one’s aid, corresponding to the Latin aduocare. 
The following passages are often quoted: Xen. Azad. i. 6. 5, 
Κλέαρχον παρεκάλεσε σύμβουλον, ὃς. .. ἐδόκει προτιμηθῆναι 
μάλιστα τῶν λλήνων : Aesch. Cres. 200, τί δεῖ σε Δήμοσθένην 
παρακαλεῖν ; ὅταν παρακαλῇς κακουργὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τεχνίτην λόγων 
κλέπτεις τὴν ἀκρόασιν. With this corresponds the classical use 


24 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [II. 1. 


of the word παράκλητος. It is used as an adjective; cf. Dion. 
Cass. xlvi. 20, τὴν ἀγορὰν... δούλων παρακλήτων πληρώσας, but 
more often absolutely ; cf. Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione, 341, 
at τῶν παρακλήτων αὗται δεήσεις καὶ σπουδαὶ τῶν ἰδίων πλεονεξιῶν 
εἵνεκα γίγνονται. Diogenes Laertius, iv. 7, Bion. πρὸς τὸν 
ἀδολέσχην λιπαροῦντα αὐτῷ συλλαβέσθαι" τὸ ἱκανόν σοι ποιήσω, 
ἐὰν παρακλήτους πέμψῃς καὶ μὴ αὐτὸς ἐλθῇς. The meaning of the 
word is thus clearly wider than that οἵ ‘‘advocate” in English. 
Though it is used specially in connection with the law courts, it 
denotes any friend called upon to give help, either by pleading 
or giving evidence, or in virtue of his position and power. Its 
Latin equivalent is “ aduocatus,” rather than “ patronus,” which 
corresponds more in meaning to our “‘advocate.” The dis- 
tinction is clearly defined by Asconius Pedianus, in a note on 
Cicero, 7x Q. Caecilium, ‘‘ Qui defendit alterum in iudicio, aut 
patronus dicitur, si orator est, aut aduocatus si aut ius suggerit, 
aut praesentiam suam commodat amico.” 

The form of the word is passive (cf. κλητός, ἐκλεκτός, 
ἀγαπητός, etc.). It must mean one who is called to the side of 
the suppliant, not one who comforts or consoles, or exhorts. 
The meaning “ comforter ” or ‘‘consoler ” can attach to the word 
only in so far as that expresses the good office which he who is 
called in performs for the friend who claims his help. 

The usage of the Septuagint corresponds. In Zec. i. 13, 


παρακλητικός is used to translate the Hebrew DSN), ῥήματα 
καλὰ καὶ λόγους παρακλητικούς. In Job xvi. 2, OND is translated 


by παρακλήτωρ (παρακλήτορες κακῶν πάντες). But it should be 
noticed that two of the later versions (Aquila, Theodotion) render 
it by παράκλητοι. Symmachos has παρηγοροῦντες, an indication- 
that in later Greek the meaning of παράκλησις was beginning to 
influence that of παράκλητος. 

Philo’s usage corresponds with the classical. The Paraclete 
is the advocate or intercessor ; cf. de Josepho, c. 40, ἀμνηστίαν 
ἁπάντων παρέχω τῶν εἰς ἐμὲ πεπραγμένων" μηδενὸς ἑτέρου δεῖσθε 
παρακλήτου: de Vita Moysis, iii. 14, the High Priest is said rightly 
to bear the symbol of the Logos (τὸ λογεῖον is the LXX expres- 
sion for the breast-plate), ἀναγκαῖον yap ἦν τὸν ἱερώμενον τῷ τοῦ 
κόσμου πατρὶ παρακλήτῳ χρῆσθαι τελειοτάτῳ τὴν ἀρετὴν υἱῷ πρός τε 
ἀμνηστείαν ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ χορηγίαν ἀφθονωτάτων ἀγαθῶν, where 
the parallel to the Johannine thought is clearly marked, whether 
the Cosmos or the Logos is to be regarded as the ‘‘son perfect 
in virtue” who is used as Paraclete. In another passage usually 
quoted, de Opificio Mundi, c. 6, οὐδενὶ δὲ παρακλήτῳ" τίς γὰρ ἦν 
ἕτερος, μόνῳ δὲ ἑαυτῷ χρησάμενος ὃ θεὸς ἔγνω δεῖν εὐεργετεῖν. .. 
τὴν . «. φύσιν, Julicher may be right in saying that the only 


II. 1.] NOTES ON I JOHN 25 


feasible meaning is something like ‘‘instructor,” “adviser,” so 
far as concerns the duty which the Paraclete is needed to perform ; 
but the point of the sentence is that God confers His benefits on 
nature A/imse/f, without using the help or services of another. 
Cf. also Zn Flaccum, §§ 3, 4. 

The word occurs as a loan-word in the Targum and Talmudic 
literature, in the sense of helper, intercessor, advocate. It is 
used in the Targum on Job xvi. 20 and xxxiii. 23 as a paraphrase 
of ySp taken in the sense of “interpreter.” The latter passage is 
especially interesting, as showing the late Jewish view of the need 
of angelic agency to ‘redeem a man from going to the pit.” 

In the Talmud, n'$prp is used for “advocate,” in opposition 
to NYHP (κατήγορος ; cf. Apoc. xii. 10, ὃ κατήγωρ. “He who 
performs one precept has gotten to himself one paraclete, and 
he who commits one transgression has gotten to himself one 
accuser” (Pirke Aboth, iv. 15; Taylor, p. 69). ‘‘ Whosoever is 
summoned before the court for capital punishment is saved only 
by powerful paracletes ; such paracletes man has in repentance 
and good works ; and if there are nine hundred and ninety-nine 
accusers, and only one to plead for his exoneration, he is saved ” 
(Shab. 32a). The sin-offering is like the paraclete before God ; 
it intercedes for man, and is followed by another offering, a 
thank-offering for the pardon obtained (Sifra, Megora iii. 3). 
These and other passages are quoted in the Jezwisk Encyclopaedia, 
δῦ. (ix. 515). The same usage is found in early Christian 
literature, where the use of the word is independent of the 
Johannine use of the term; cf. 2 Clement. vi. 9, τίς ἡμῶν παρά- 
κλητος ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εὑρεθῶμεν ἔργα ἔχοντες ὅσια καὶ δίκαια; 
Barnabas, c. xx. καταπονοῦντες τὸν θλιβόμενον, πλουσίων παρά- 
κλητοι, πενήτων ἄνομοι κριταί. 

The connection of the word with the ordinary meaning of 
παράκλησις is found in Rufinus’ translation of the De Princtpits ; 
cf. ii. 7. 3, “‘Paracletus uero quod dicitur Spiritus sanctus, a 
consolatione dicitur. Paraclesis enim Latine consolatio appel- 
latur.” He goes on to suggest that the word may have a 
different meaning when applied to the Holy Spirit and to Christ. 
“Videtur enim de Saluatore Paracletus dici deprecator. 
Utrumque enim significat in Graeco Paracletus, et depre- 
catorem et consolatorem.” 

Origen seems to have understood the word in the sense 
of ‘“‘intercessor.” Cf. Comm. in Joann. 1. 38, τὴν περὶ ἡμῶν 
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα προστασίαν αὐτοῦ δηλοῖ παρακαλοῦντος ὑπὲρ τῆς 
ἀνθρώπων φύσεως καὶ ἱλασκομένου, ὡς 6 παράκλητος καὶ ἱλασμός. 

In Chrysostom it has the sense of “comforter,” Hom. in 70. 
75, ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐδέπω αὐτὸν ἐγνωκότας εἰκὸς ἦν σφόδρα ἐπιζητεῖν 
τὴν συνουσίαν ἐκείνην, τὰ ῥήματα, τὴν κατὰ σάρκα αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν, 


26 THE EPISTLES OF 5, JOHN [11. 1. 


καὶ μηδεμίαν δέχεσθαι παραμυθίαν ἀπόντος" τί φησιν ; ἐρωτήσω τὸν 
πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν᾽ τουτέστιν" ἄλλον ὡς ἐμέ. 

In Cyril of Jerusalem the sense is not limited to that of 
“comforting ἢ cf. Catechests, xvi. 20, Παράκλητος δὲ καλεῖται, διὰ 
τὸ παρακαλεῖν καὶ παραμυθεῖσθαι καὶ συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῆς 
ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν : Ro. viii. 26 being quoted in support, with the 
explanation of ὑπερεντυγχάνει “ δῆλον δὲ ὅτι πρὸς τὸν θεόν." 

The evidence of the old Latin Version is similar. In the 
Epistle ‘‘aduocatus” is used, in the Gospel either ‘ aduocatus ” 

‘“paraclitus.” This is not seriously affected by the evidence 
adduced by Ronsch (“tala ἡ. Vulgata, p. 348), that “aduocare” 
acquired the meaning of “to comfort” (cf. Tertullian, adv. Mare. iv. 
14, where the παρακαλέσαι τοὺς πενθοῦντας of Is. Ixi. 2 is translated 
“aduocare languentes.” ‘* Advocare” is a natural translation of 
παρακαλεῖν (cf. Tert. Pudicit. 13; Iren. 11. ix. 3, v. xv. 1, and the 
Vulgate of Is. xl. 2, quoted by Rénsch), and owes any connection 
with the idea of “‘comforting” that it may have to that fact. 
Augustine’s “ Paracletus, id est Consolator,” throws no light on 
the meaning and usage of the Greek word. ‘The other versions 
do not throw much light on the subject. In Syriac, Arabic, 
Aethiopic, and Bohairic it is transliterated, and in the Sahidic also 
in the Gospel, while it has “‘ he that prayeth for us” in the Epistle. 
The Vulgate has “ Paracletus ” in the Gospel and “ Aduocatus” in 
the Epistle. This, no doubt, influenced the modern versions. 
Wycliffe renders ‘‘ Comforter ” in the Gospel and “‘ Advocate ” in 
the Epistle; and Luther also has ‘‘ Troster” in the Gospel and 
“ Fursprecher” in the Epistle. 

Thus the evidence of early use supports the evidence of the 
form of the word, which is naturally passive. Its meaning must 
be “one called to the side of” him who claims the services of 
the called. The help it describes is generally assistance of some 
sort or other in connection with the courts of law; but it has a 
wider signification also,—the help of any one who “lends his 
presence” to his friend. Any kind of help, of advocacy, inter- 
cession, or mediation may be suggested by the context in which 
it is used. In itself it denotes merely “one called in to help.” 
In the Epistle the idea of one who pleads the Christian’s cause 
before God is clearly indicated, and ‘‘advocate” is the most 
satisfactory translation. This sense suits some of the passages 
in which it is used in the Gospel; in the others it suggests one 
who can be summoned to give the help that is needed in a 
wider sense. ‘There is no authority for the sense of ‘‘ Comforter,” 
either in the sense of ‘“‘strengthener” or ‘“ consoler,” which has 
been so generally connected with it in consequence of the 
influence of Wycliffe and Luther, except Patristic interpretations 
of its meaning in S. John. 


1Π.1.] NOTES ON I JOHN 27 


The suggestion of Zimmern (Vater, Sohn, u. Fiirsprecher tn 
der babylonischen Gottesvorstellung), that its use in Christian and 
Jewish thought may be connected with the Babylonian myth 
of the intervention of Nusku (the Fire God), who “‘acts as the 
advocate of men at the instance of Ea and Marduk,” has not 
been favourably received. So far as concerns the Johannine use 
of the term Paraclete, far simpler explanations are to be found 
in its use in Philo and Rabbinic Judaism. In reality it hardly 
needs explanation. It was probably a common word, and the 
obvious one to use. Moulton and Milligan (Zxfosztor, vol. x., 
1910) quote the illustrations of its use, one from ‘‘a very illiterate 
letter” of the second century a.p. where it has been restored 
(BU 601?2), καὶ τὸν dpaBdva τοῦ Sapariwvos παρακλος (/. παρά- 
κλητος) δέδωκα αὐτῷ, where they suggest that it may mean “on 
being summoned,” and an instance of the use of ἀπαράκλητος, 
OGIS 248% (175-161 B.C.), ἀπαρακλήτους. 

Deissmann (Licht von Osten, p. 243, n. 1) lays stress on the 
use of the word in Aramaic as a proof of its frequency in vulgar 
Greek. Its use in the Targums and Talmudic Literature is 
important. The extent of the author’s acquaintance with 
Rabbinic thought is at last beginning to be recognized. 

ἔχομεν] Augustine’s comment is worth quoting, “ Maluit se 
ponere in numero peccatorum ut haberet aduocatum Christum, 
quam ponere se pro Christo aduocatum et inueniri inter dam- 
nandos superbos.” As frequently the writer identifies himself 
with the rest of the Christian Body. They actually possess and 
have experience of the means, which are fofentially available for 
the whole world. And the need is felt by the whole Church, 
not because any of them might, but whenever any one does fall. 
The lapse of one is a matter which concerns the whole body 
(ἐάν τις. .. ἔχομεν). 

᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον] As true man (Ἰησοῦν), He can state 
the case for men with absolute knowledge and real sympathy. 
As God’s anointed messenger to men (Χριστόν), He is naturally 
fitted for the task and acceptable to Him before whom He 
pleads. As δίκαιος He can enter the Presence from which all 
sin excludes. He needs no advocate for Himself. Comp. 
Book of Enoch xxxviii. 2, 1111. 6, where the Messiah is called 
“the Righteous One.” 


auapTnTe] αμαρτανητε 14*. 69. 137 as Cyr. Dam. 

και] om. boh-codd. 

εαν τις ἀμαρτη] sz peccetis, arm-codd. 

πατερα] θεον arm. Eus. Did. : deum patrem, Tert. Cels. ad Vigil. 
Inoouvv Χριστον] post δικαιον 7* 153 (318). 

Xpicrov] om. 79 1615 (173):+ Dominum nostrum et boh-cod. 
δικαιον] for καὶ 79 157 (29): om. L” © (498): szeeffragatorem Cyp-cod. 


28 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [11. 2 


2. αὐτός x.7.d.] “ Himself is a propitiation for our sins.” His 
advocacy is valid, because He can Himself bear witness that 
the only condition on which fellowship between God and man 
can be restored has actually been fulfilled, 2.6. the removal of 
the sin by which the intercourse was interrupted. He is not 
only the High Priest, duly qualified to offer the necessary pro- 
pitiation, but also the propitiation which He offers. The writer’s 
meaning is most safely determined by reference to Old Testament 
theories of sacrifice, or rather of propitiation. In spite of the 
absence of direct quotations, there can be no doubt that the 
author of this Epistle is greatly indebted to the Old Testament. 
If the hand is the hand of a Hellene, it expresses the thought 
of a Jew. His mind is steeped in the thoughts of the Old 
Testament. Though he has lived among Greeks and learned 
to express himself simply in their language, and to some extent 
has made himself acquainted with Hellenic thought, he 15 
really as much a stranger and a sojourner among them as his 
fathers were. He may have some acquaintance with Gnostic 
theories of redemption, which Greek thought had been borrowing 
from the East from at least the beginning of the century before 
Christ, his own thoughts on the subject are the outcome of his 
knowledge of the Scriptures. His views on propitiation there- 
fore, as on all other subjects, must be considered in the light of 
the Old Testament. 

The object of propitation in Jewish thought, as shown in 
their Scriptures, is not God, as in Greek thought, but man, who 
has estranged himself from God, or the sins which have inter- 
vened between him and his God. They must be “covered” 
before right relations can be restored between the Deity and 
His worshippers. This is the dominant thought in the sacrificial 
system of the priestly code. It is the natural outcome of the 
sufferings of the nation before and during the Exile which had 
deepened their sense of sin, and of Jehovah’s estrangement from 
His people. The joyous sacrificial feast which the Deity shares 
with His worshippers consequently gives place, in national 
thought and feeling, to the ritual of the day of Atonement and 
the whole system of sin-, trespass-, and guilt-offering. Both ideas, 
the sacrificial feast which forms the ground of closer union between 
God and men, and the propitiatory offering by means of which 
interrupted relations can be restored, have, of course, their 
counterpart in Christian thought and teaching. But it is the 
latter which dominates the writer’s thought here, in an age in 
which failure and disappointment are fast clouding the clearer 
vision of God. The dominant idea which is common both to 
the Old Testament type and the Christian counterpart is that 
of the absolute holiness of God, who dwells in the light to which 


BOP al NOTES ON I JOHN 29 


no man can approach, till he has put away the sin which cannot 
enter the presence of God. So far as the means are concerned, 
the ceremonial has given way to the spiritual. The work of the 
Christ, who in His life and death freely and voluntarily offered 
Himself in complete surrender to the will of God and the work 
of righteousness, has made possible the removal of the sin which 
keeps men from God. So far as they attach themselves to Him 
their sins are covered, for the possibility of their final removal 
is assured. 


autos] om. boh-cod. 

ἱλασμος] post ἐστιν A 68. 180 vg. syrs* Eus. Or. Cypr. Hil. Aug. 

de Twy ἡμετερων] 7 396 ( —) Je 16, 

δε οἵας ἦς Ue (Gist) ees 

Lovov] μονων B 1. 21. 33. 37. 66%. 80*. 101* al. pauc. sah, boh-codd. 
(uid.) Or. 


8. The author has stated that his object in writing is to 
produce sinlessness, and that if sin intervenes to interrupt the 
fellowship between man and God, there is a remedy (vv. 1, 2). 
He now proceeds to point out the signs of Christian life, as 
realized in knowledge of God and union with God. They are 
to be found in obedience and in Christ-like conduct. Knowledge 
of God includes, of course, much more than obedience to His 
commands, but its genuineness and reality can be thus tested. 
The writer can conceive of no real knowledge of God which 
does not issue in obedience, wherever the Divine will has been 
revealed in definite precepts. 

In the Johannine system, “knowledge” is never a purely 
intellectual process.!_ It is acquired by the exercise of all the 
faculties of intellect, heart, and will. Fellowship and acquaint- 
ance are its cognate ideas. It is developed in the growing 
experience of intercourse. This conception, which dominates 
the whole Old Testament idea of “knowing God” and of God 
“knowing ” men (cf. Am. iii. 2), is similarly developed in S. Paul’s 
“knowing God, or rather being known of Him” (Gal. iv. 9). 
The stress laid in the Johannine writings on the true knowledge 
of God is certainly connected with the necessity which the author 
felt of combating certain stages of Gnostic thought. But to see 
in the language of this and other similar verses of this Epistle 
any necessary reference to the particular stage of second- 
century Gnosticism which immediately preceded the more 
definite systems of Marcion and Valentinus, is precarious. We 
know too little about the development of Gnostic ideas before 
Basilides to say ecther that the stage of Gnosticism implied in 
the Fourth Gospel had or had not been reached by the year 


1 “Dei cognitio res est efficax. Neque enim nuda imaginatione cognos- 
citur Deus, sed quum se intus cordibus nostris per Spiritum patefacit ” (Calvin). 


30 THE EPISTLES OF 5: JOHN [1. 3, 4. 


100 A.D. or before that date, ov that a considerable number of 
years must have passed before the Church could have demanded 
so definite a break with opinions of this kind as is suggested in 
the Second and Third Epistles (cf. Schmiedel, Avangelium, 
Briefe und Offenbarung Johannis, pp. 38, 19). 

ἐν τούτῳ] points forward, as usually. Cf. note on 1. 4. 

γινώσκομεν, ἐγνώκαμεν] The tenses are significant. We learn to 
perceive more and more clearly that our knowledge is genuine 
through its abiding results in a growing willingness to obey. 

τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρώμεν] The phrase τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς (τὸν 
λόγον) is characteristic of the Johannine books, including the 
Apocalypse. It occurs in the Gospel 12 times, in the First 
Epistle 6, and in the Apocalypse 6 (cf. also Apoc. i. 3, τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ 
γεγραμμένα). Elsewhere it is found only in Mt. xix. 17, εἰ δὲ 
θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρει Tas ἐντολάς. Cf. Mk. vil. 9 
(τὴν παράδοσιν); τ Ti. vi. 14, τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον. 
Cf. also Sifre, Deut. 48, quoted by Schlatter (Sprache u. Heimat des 
gten Evangeliums). ‘When a man keeps the ways of the law, 
should he sit still and not do them? Rather shouldest thou 
turn to do them.” As opposed to φυλάσσειν (custodire), τηρεῖν 
(obseruare) denotes sympathetic obedience to the spirit of a 
command, rather than the rigid carrying out of its letter. We 
may contrast Mk. x. 20, ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ νεότητός μου 
(=Lk. xviii. 21, ἐφύλαξα). As knowledge is not confined to 
the intellect, so obedience penetrates beyond the latter to the 
spirit. It may be noticed that the Vulgate has obserware in this 
verse, custodire in ver. 4, and seruare in 5, facts which suggest 
that no Latin rendering was felt to be an exact equivalent, or 
completely satisfactory rendering, of the Greek word τηρεῖν. 
In the Gospel seruare is the regular rendering. 

τὰς ἐντολάς] The various commands, or definite precepts, in 
which those parts of the whole θέλημα which are known to us 
have found expression. 


και] om. 75 397 fff (96). 
γινωσκομεν} γινωσκωμεν A: cognoscemus boh-ed, 
᾿“τηρωμεν] φυλαξωμεν N* : τηρησωμεν A 5 (Φ). 


4. The test is adequate, and may be applied with certainty ; 
for there is no such thing as knowledge which does not issue 
in corresponding action. The man who claims to have know- 
ledge of God which does not carry with it as its necessary 
consequence the attempt to carry out His will, thereby declares 
himself a liar. There is no room for self-deception. The 
falsehood, if not conscious and deliberate, is without excuse. 
For the converse thought, that the doing of the will leads to 
fuller knowledge, cf. Jn. vil. 17. 


II. 4, 5.] NOTES ON I JOHN 31 


6 λέγων] The verse is closely parallel to i. 6, 8, το. The 
form of expression is more individualized than the conditional 
sentences used there. It is the direct and definite statement 
of the writer conscious of the fact that he is dealing with a real 
danger, and probably with a statement that has been actually 
made, by men against whose influence he is trying to guard his 
texvia, If there is no reason to see in it an attack on any parti- 
cular Gnostic teacher, it clearly deals with statements which 
they have heard, and to which they have shown themselves 
ready to listen. 

ψεύστης ἐστίν] The falseness of the claim is the point which 
is emphasized. At the same time the form of expression chosen 
declares its inexcusableness. Contrast i. 8 (ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν). 
As compared with the verb (i. 6, ψευδόμεθα), it may perhaps 
suggest that the statement is a revelation of the character of 
the man who makes it. “The whole character is false” 
(Westcott). He who claims knowledge without obedience 
“has” the sin which he has allowed to gain foothold. If light 
is seen and not followed, deterioration of character is the 
inevitable result. 

kal... ἐστίν] The antithetical clause is not merely a repetition 
of the positive statement in a negative form. The “truth” is 
regarded by the writer as an active principle working in a man. 
It is not concerned with the intellect alone. It corresponds to 
the highest effort of man’s whole nature. Cf. Jn. viii. 32. 

ἐν τούτῳ] In such an one. In the Gospel and Epistles of 
S. John, when otros refers back, it always denotes the subject or 
object, as previously described ; cf. Jn. i. 2 (οὗτος, the Logos who 
is θεός), V. 38, τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε (ONE sent by God). 


ort NAB 18, 25. 27. 33**. 65. 66**. 68. 69. 98. IOI. 177. 180 a®* dst 
jet 57iect syrte Clem. Cyp. Leif. Aug. Amb.] om. CK LP al. plu. cat. 
aeth"* Clem. Oec. 

και] οὔ. καὶ A P 13. 27. 29 | evrov Tw] zz Ho boh-codd. : om. δὲ 19. 

ἢ] om. 21. 34. 56. 100. 192, ΟΣ W, 

αληθεια) + του θεου & 8. 25 aeth. : +avrov 192: +ev αὐτω 19”, 


5. Again the thought is carried further in the statement of 
the opposite. The whole word is substituted for the definite 
precepts, and knowledge gives way to love. Perfect obedience 
gains the whole prize. For love is greater than knowledge. 

ὃς δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ] The statement is made in its most general 
form. Contrast the preceding verse, and i. 6 ff. The difference 
shows that the writer has in view definite ‘ Gnostic” claims. 
Knowledge is not the possession of a few “pneumatic” indi- 
viduals. In contrast with the claim of such an one, whose 
conduct shows the falsity of his claim, is set the possibility of 
obtaining the higher prize, the perfection of love, open to all 


32 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 5, 6. 


who are willing to obey. The “chance οὐ the prize of learning 
love” is not reserved to the few who think that they “ know.” 

αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον] The order of the words throws the emphasis 
on αὐτοῦ, which takes up the αὐτόν of the Gnostic’s claim. The 
teaching of the God, whom he claims to know, is very different 
from the views expressed in his claim. 

The λόγος is the sum of the ἐντολαί, or rather it is the whole 
of which they are the parts. Love is not made perfect in a 
series of acts of obedience to so many definite commands. It 
reaches its full growth only when God’s whole plan is welcomed 
and absorbed. The ἐντολαί offer adequate tests of the truth 
or falsehood of any claim to know God. But something more 
is needed before Obedience can have her perfect work. 

ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ] The love of God has been interpreted in 
three ways, according as the genitive is regarded as subjective, 
objective, ‘or qualitative; God’s love for us, or our love for 
God, or the love which is characteristic of Him, which 
“answers to His nature” and which when “ communicated to 
man is effective in him towards the brethren and towards God 
Himself.” The second gives the simplest and most natural 
meaning to the words in their present context. The love for 
God of which man is capable is only fully realized in absolute 
obedience. At the same time we must remember that it is the 
teaching of the author that it is God’s love for men which calls 
out the response of man’s love for Him. ‘We love Him, 
because He first loved us.” Comp. ii. 15, ill. 17, lv. 12, V. 3. 

ἀληθῶς] The true state of the case as contrasted with the 
false plea set up by the man who claims to have knowledge 
without obedience. The emphatic position, however, of the 
word suggests that it may reasonably be regarded as one of the 
many signs which are to be found in this Epistle, that the writer 
feels strongly the need of encouraging his readers with the 
assurance of the reality of their Christian privileges. Certainty 
is within their grasp if they will use the means which have been 
placed at their disposal. Comp. Jn. viii. 31. 


Tnpn] τήρει K 13. 100. 142 c8F 57!&ct: τηρήσει 75 543 (5), 
τον] om. 75 63 (265). 
αληθως] om. 27. 29. 66**. 


5b, 6. Imitation the sign of Union. 

The test of union with God is the imitation of His Son. 
This is not stated directly, as in the case of knowledge (ver. 3), 
but the claim to “abide in Him” is said to carry with it the 
moral obligation to “follow the blessed steps of His most holy 
life.” See Findlay, p. 149. 

ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν] This form of expression is peculiar to the 


ὙΠ 6. 7] NOTES ON I JOHN 33 


Johannine writings (Gospel and First Epistle). It is the 
equivalent, in his system of thought, of the Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ 
εἶναι, οἵ which it was a very natural modification, if it is to be 
attributed to the author, and not to his Master. The longer 
the Lord delayed His coming, the more it came to be realized 
that union with Christ under the conditions of earthly 
existence must be an abiding rather than a short tarrying. The 
idea had taken its new shape before the “last hour” was thought 
to have struck. Bengel points out a climax: cognitio (ver. 3), 
communio (5), constantia (6). 
ἐκεῖνος] For tlie use of ἐκεῖνος with reference to Christ, cf. 
BAA We aos ἢ; τὸ; ἵν. τὴ. 70: Vil. 11, XIX. 23, ΙΧ: 12. 25, ΠῚ 
‘perhaps also xix. 35 (Zahn, Zzn/eitwng, ii. 481; cf. Introd. p. iv). 
περιπατεῖν] See note on i. 6. For its use in the Johannine 
Welines cis Vili 12, ΣΙ: gf, ΣΙ 5:1 Jn. 86,7, 1. 124 
eae 43653) |. 2, 4: 
ev TouTw] post θεου P 31: om. 2783 (N)(?) (cf. Tisch. ver. 4) 79 116* 
ae cognoscemus, boh-ed. 
KaOws . . . περιπατειν] sic ambulare sicut (+et codd.) 2116 ambulauit, 
arm. 
και. . . περιπατειν] om. L. 
kat auros] post ourws 7568 (317) 7° 174: om. sah4, 
ourws & CK P al. pler. cat. cop. syrP arm. Salv. Thphyl. Oec.] om. AB 
3. 34. 65. 81. 180 ds“ vg. sah. aeth. Clem. Or. Cyr. Cyp. Aug. The 
omission may possibly be due to the similarity of the preceding word, but 
the evidence against it is very strong. 


2. ii.'7-17. Proof of the ethical thesis from the circumstances 
in which the readers find themselves, and from their previous 
experience. The old commandment is always new in the grow- 
ing light of God’s revelation. ‘‘ Walking in light” and “ keeping 
the commandments” further defined as love of the brethren. 

(a) 7-11. General. Brotherly love. 

(ὁ) 12-17. Individual. Warning against love of the world. 

7-8. The Commandment, old and new. 

It is hardly necessary to discuss the interpretations which 
regard the “old” and the “new” as different commandments, 
the old commandment being the injunction to “walk as He 
walked,” and the new, the call to brotherly love. But assuming 
the identity of the old and the new, the commandment has been 
interpreted in three different ways. (1) With reference to i. 5 ff., 
to give proof of ‘‘ walking in light” by the confession of sin and 
the avoiding of everything sinful. (2) With reference to the verses 
immediately preceding, to “walk as He walked.” Of these the 
second is the most natural, but it is not necessary to find a 
reference to any actual words of the Epistle which have pre- 
ceded. The expressions which follow, ‘‘of which ye were in 


3 


34 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [11:7 


possession from the beginning,” “the word which ye heard,” 
make such a’reference improbable. (3) The expression ἐντολὴ 
καινή recalls so vividly the language of the Gospel, and the con- 
nection with the duty of brotherly love insisted upon in wv. 
9 and το is so clear, that we are almost compelled to interpret 
the passage in accordance with Jn. ΧΙ]. 34, ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι 
ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς, where the 
“newness” is to be found in the new standard required, καθὼς 
ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς, rather than in the duty of mutual love, which was 
recognized in the Jewish law. In meaning this interpretation 
is practically identical with (2). ‘The idea of the imitation of 
Christ is identical with the fulfilment of love” (Westcott), And 
it gives the most natural meaning to the description of the 
commandment as old, and yet new “in Him and in you.” The 
old commandment, ‘‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” which was 
already contained in the Mosaic law, if not also to be found in 
the conscience of those who “having no law, are a law unto 
themselves,” received a new meaning and application in the 
light of Christ’s teaching and example, and in the lives of His 
followers. And it had lately acquired a deeper meaning in con- 
trast with the loveless intellectualism, which the writer clearly 
regarded as one of the worst dangers in the teaching and 
example of his opponents. 

ἀγαπητοί] The first occurrence of the writer’s favourite form 
of address in these Epistles. Cf. iii. 2, 21, iv. 1, 7543) Ja 0.2 
5, 11. No conclusion can be drawn from its use as to the 
meaning of the command. The reading of the received text 
(ἀδελφοῦ). is found in the vocative only once in these Epistles. 
Both words are suitable expressions to introduce an appeal to the 
readers to show their brotherhood in Christ by active brotherly 
love, whether the writer has primarily in view, as the objects of 
the love which he inculcates, Christians as Christians, or men 
as men. ‘The attestation, however, is: decisive in favour of 
ἀγαπητοί. . And, on the whole, it is not only more in accordance 
with his style, but suits his appeal better. The ἀδελφοί may 
have ‘been ‘suggested by the language of vv. 9, το. 

am ἀρχῆς] The meaning of this expression must, of course, be 
determined from the context in each case. It is used eight 
times in the First Epistle, and twice in the Second. Ini. 1 it 
recalls the use of ἐν ἀρχῇ in the first chapter of Genesis and in 
the Prologue of the Gospel. Its use in iii. 8 (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 6 διάβολος 
ἁμαρτάνει) is similar. ‘Twice in this present chapter (ii. 13, 14) 
it occurs in the phrase, “Ye have known Him who is from the 
beginning.” The remaining instances in the two Epistles all 
have reference to the “old” command. The repetition of the 
words at the end of ver. 7 (ὃν. ἠκούσατε [ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς}) in the 


ΤΠ 7, &] NOTES ON I JOHN 35 


Received Text is almost certainly wrong. They have probably 
been introduced from the similar phrase in ver. 24. 

Where the phrase is used of the “old” command, it may 
refer either to the early days of the Mosaic legislation, or to the 
beginning of the education of each convert to whom the writer 
is speaking, or to the beginning of his life as a Christian. A 
reference to the teaching of Judaism on the subject of ‘“ love” 
seems, on the whole, to satisfy the conditions best in each case. 
But it is probably a mistake to attempt to define the meaning of 
the phrase very rigidly. Long continuance is suggested rather 
than a definite starting-point. It is not easy to determine 
whether the writer is thinking of the beginning of the life of each 
of his readers, or of their religious consciousness, or of their 
Christian life. The point can be settled only by the more general 
consideration of the character of the false teaching combated in 
these Epistles. The real force of the expression is to heighten 
the contrast of the “‘ newer” teaching which placed knowledge 
higher than love. The writer has in view the 


**Many Antichrists, who answered prompt 
‘Am I not Jaspar as thyself art John? j 
Nay, young, whereas through age thou mayest forget?’” 


He is confident that as against the ‘‘glozing of some new 
shrewd tongue” that which was “from the beginning” will prove 
to be ‘‘of new significance and fresh result.” 

ὁ λόγος ὅν ἠκούσατε] “The word which ye heard” must be 
that which was told them by their teachers, whether Jewish or 
Christian or both. The command to love one’s neighbour was 
common to both. 6 λόγος more naturally suggests a whole © 
message rather than one definite command. But it may refer: 
to the new commandment of Jn. xill. 34, regarded as a rule of | 
life rather than a single precept. 


αγαπητοι & ABCP al.” cat. vg. sah. cop. syr“t arm. Did. Thphyl. 
Aug. Bed.] αδελῴοι Καὶ L.al. plur. aeth"'™ Oec.: om. j8*: αδελῴοι μου 
1. 6299 (—), 

etxeTe] exeTe 27. 29. 34. 42. 57iect 5Slect ascr kscr: fabemus sah : 
habebamus arm-ed. 

ἢ το} pr. καὶ [2 7. 

ἡ κουσατε δ ABCP 5. 13. 27. 20. 39. 40. 65. 68. 81. 180 dsc jscr vg, 
sah. cop. syr"t arm. aeth. Aug. Thphyl.]+am apyns K L al. longe plur. 
cat. Oec. 


if the writer did not regard it as implicitly contained in the story 
of Cain and Abel (cf. 111. 11, 12, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους" οὐ 
καθὼς Καὶν x...) becomes new “in Him (2.4. Christ) and in you.” 
The ἐντολή, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” received an 
altogether new meaning and scope in the light of Christ’s 


36 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 8. 


teaching as to “ Who my neighbour is,” of His own example 
shown most clearly in His treatment of Tax-gatherers and Aliens, 
and of the carrying out of His example by His followers in the 
admission of Gentiles to the full privileges of Christianity on 
equal terms with the Jews. In Christ and in Christians the old 
command had gained “ new significance and fresh result.” The 
verse had, no doubt, a special significance in view of the recent 
victory gained over the false teaching, and its depreciation of 
the law of love, which characterized the conduct and the thought 
of its supporters. The author rightly saw in recent events how 
the Church had “rescued the law of love” from the darkness 
which threatened to overwhelm it. The true light was shining 
more brightly in consequence, and the darkness more quickly 
passing away. But though these recent events were the occasion, 
they do not exhaust the meaning of the words, which have a far 
wider reference. Wurm, who argues with great plausibility for 
the reference to the victory over the false teachers (see esp. 
p._104), apparently confines the reference to that incident too 
narrowly. Though it affords a fairly adequate explanation of 
the words ἐν ὑμῖν, it is unsatisfactory as an explanation of ἐν 
αὐτῷ. The new significance of the law of love in Christ and in 
Christians had a far wider application. The light of the true 
knowledge of God was already shining and dispelling the 
darkness of exclusiveness by the light of love wheresoever the 
“darkness overtook it not.” 

πάλιν] The word clearly introduces another description of 
the same commandment, not another command. Cf. Jn. ‘xvi. 
28, πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον, Where πάλιν cannot mean “a second 
time,” and 1 Co. xii. 21, od δύναται 6 ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν TH χειρί... 
ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν. Cf. also Jn. xix. 37; Ro. xv. 10, 
ΤΙΣ ©2'3,\r Cosi.20% (?)i2 Co, x. γι σι. Tos He. τ τ 
iv. 5, x. 30. The use of πάλιν in the N.T. to introduce another 
quotation in proof of the same point, or a further thought about 
the same subject, is fully established. 

ὅ] The antecedent to the neuter relative is the clause ἐντολὴν 
καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν. ‘It is a new commandment that I write 
unto you.” The order lays the emphasis on ἐντολὴν καινήν. It 
is the ‘‘newness” of the old command which is said to be true 
in Him and in His followers. 

ὅτι. . . φαίνει] The shining of the true light reveals the true 
character of that which the darkness hid or obscured. The 
force of the present tense in παράγεται and φαίνει is significant. 
They must be interpreted as presents. ΑἹ] is not yet clear and 
‘known, but the process has already begun. The darkness is 
‘passing away. Contrast ‘It has become bright as the sun upon 
earth, and the darkness is past” (Book of Enoch lviii. 5). 





II. 8, 9.] NOTES ON I JOHN 37 


There are many indications in the Epistle that the writer 
regards the Parousia as imminent. Cf. especially ver. 18, ἐσχάτη 
apa ἐστίν. The present verse throws some light on the difficult 
question of the relation between the teaching of the Gospel 
and that of the Epistle on the subject of the Parousia. In 
the Epistle the expectation is more clearly stated and more 
obviously felt than in the Gospel, though in the earlier work the 
idea of “the last day” not only receives definite expression, 
but is something more than an obsolete conception, alien to 
the author’s real thoughts and sympathy, or a mere conde- 
scension to popular Christianity, fed on Apocalyptic expectation 
and unable to bear a purely spiritual interpretation. A differ- 
ence of emphasis is not necessarily a change of view. It is 
doubtful if the two conceptions are really inconsistent. Their 
inconsistency would not be felt by a writer of the particular 
type of thought which characterizes the author. Their meeting 
point lies in the idea of ‘‘manifestation,” which is his character- 
istic expression for the Parousia, as also for the earthly life of 
the Lord. For him the “ Presence” is no sudden unveiling of 
a man from heaven, who in the twinkling of an eye shall destroy 
the old and set up the new. It is the consummation of a process 
which is continuously going on. It is the final manifestation o 
the things that are, and therefore the passing away of all that 
is phenomenal. ~As eternal life>‘“‘is” now and ‘“‘shall be” here- 
after, as judgment is a process already going on, because men 
must show their true nature by their attitude to the Christ, while 
its completion is a final act; so the Parousia is the complete 
manifestation of that which is already at work, ἃ The time of 
its completion is still thought of as ‘“‘the last day,” and “the 
day of judgment.” The true light is already shining, and the 
darkness is passing away. But He who is coming will come. / 


kawyv] om. 721 (310) A 4161, 

0... auTw] zz gua est uerttas, boh. | ἐστιν pwevee HS (C) 75. 008, 

ο ἐστιν αληθες] om. 75 7, 

αληθες] post αὐτω A, 

ev υὑμιν] 8% BC K Lal. longe plur. cat. vg. sah. boh-ed. syrs“ etP ἵχξ arm. 
aeth. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. Bed.] ἐν ἡμῖν AP 4. 7. 9. 22. 29. 31. 34. 47. 
76* cs tol. boh-cod. syr?™ Hier. : om. ev 5! (260). 

σκοτια] σκια A. 


9. The true light was already shining and gaining ground. 
The darkness was passing away. But it had not yet passed. 
The perfect day had not yet dawned. All had not yet recognized 
the light. And all who claimed to have done so could not 
make good their claim. “The true light, when once apprehended, 
leads to very definite results. The claim to have recognized it, 
if not borne out by their presence, is false. These results are 


38 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [11. 9. 


presented in sentences similar to vv. 4 and 6. The writer puts 
before his readers the cases of typical individuals, he that saith, 
he that loveth, he that hateth. The falsity of the claim is 
sharply stated. At the same time the form of expression (év 
τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι) would seem to suggest that there is more 
excuse for self-deception. The claimant is not called ψεύστης 
(v. 4). ‘It is always easy to mistake an intellectual knowledge 
for a spiritual knowledge of the Truth” (Westcott), To claim 
to have knowledge of God, actually realized in personal ex- 
perience (γινώσκειν), without obeying his commands, is deliberate 
falsehood. “To claim spiritual illumination without love may be 
due to the fact that we are deceiving ourselves. It may be the 
result of mistaken notions as to the function of the intellect. 
Those who put forward such a claim only show that their appre- 
hension of the “light” is not at present so complete as they 
imagine. 

The ‘‘light” is, of course, that_which illumines the moral and 
spiritual spheres. Cf. Origen, Comm. in Joann. xiii. 23, φῶς οὗν 
ὀνομάζεται ὃ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σωματικοῦ φωτὸς μεταληφθεὶς cis ἀόρατον 
καὶ ἀσώματον φῶς, διὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ φωτίζειν νοητοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς δύναμιν 
οὕτω λεγόμενος. In virtue of such “light” it is possible for men 
to go forward in moral duty and spiritual growth, just as the 
light of the sun makes it possible for them to walk on the 
earth’s surface without stumbling or tripping up (cf. Jn. xi. ο f.). 

μισῶν] The writer naturally does not deal with the possibility 
of intermediate states between love and hatred. In so far as 
the attitude of any particular man towards his fellow-man is not 
love, it is hatred. In so far as it is not hatred, it is love. The 
statements are absolute. The writer is not now concerned with 
their applicability to the complex feelings of one man towards 
another in actual life, or how the feelings of love and hatred 
are mingled in them. It is his custom to make absolute state- 
ments, without any attempt to work out their bearing on actual 
individual cases. His work is that of the prophet, not of the 
casuist. 

τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ] The full meaning of these verses can be 
realized only in the light of the revelation of the brotherhood of 
all men in Christ. In spite of the statements which are usually 
made to the contrary, we are hardly justified in saying that this 
universalism is beyond the writer’s vision. The Christ of the 
Fourth Gospel is the Light of the World, but the command to 
love one another is given to those who have recognized His 
claims. In the Epistle, Christ is the Propitiation for the whole 
world. But this is potential rather than actual. The writer has 
to deal with present circumstances, and polemical aims un- 
doubtedly colour the expression of his views. Prophet and 


II. 9, 10.] NOTES ON I JOHN 39 


not casuist as he is, he is nevertheless too much in earnest to 
lose sight of the practical. Vague generalities are not the instru- 
ments with which he works. A vapid philanthropy, or a pre- 
tentious cosmopolitanism, which might neglect the more obvious 
duties of love lying closer to hand, would find no favour with 
him. The wider brotherhood might be a hope for the future, as 
it is for us. But the idea of brotherhood was actually realized 
among Christians, though in his own community it is clear that 
much was still wanting in this respect. It is of this brotherhood 
that he is primarily thinking. In his letters to individuals this 
is even clearer than here (cf. 3 Jn. 5,10). And the usage of 
the word ἀδελφοί in the New Testament certainly favours this 
view. At the same time, the wider view of the Sermon on the 
Mount and the Parable of the Good Samaritan is in no way 
contradicted by the more limited statements of this Epistle. 
The language used here lends itself easily to a similar expansion. 
The Lord had summarized the teaching of the Mosaic Law in 
the words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine 
enemy.” The new light had revealed the brotherhood of all 
men. In its light the term “brother” includes both classes, 
neighbours and enemies, whom the Law had separated. He 
who now hates his ‘‘brother” has not had his mental vision 
cleared by the light. The writer’s words can easily be made 
to convey the wider truth. He certainly would not contradict 
it. What he enforces is the first step towards its realization. 
And he is always thinking of the next step which his readers 
must take. Note the emphatic position of ἕως ἄρτι: the light is 
shining and he is in darkness still. 


Om. ‘totum comma sana. 


εν 2°] pr. ψευστης ἐστιν kat ἐᾷ 15. 43. 98. 137 arm. aeth. Cypr. 
σκοτια] σκιὰ 100 (mg.). 


10. The contrast is, as usual, stated in terms which carry it 
a stage further, μένειν being substituted for εἶναι. It is possible 
that a man might attain to the light. He cannot abide in it 
without showing that love which the new light has revealed to 
be the true attitude of Christian to Christian, and of man to 
man. Cf. Jn. xii. 46, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ μὴ 
μείνῃ : Vili. 35, ὃ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν aidva. The slave may learn 
much, but he cannot abide in the house for ever. 

σκάνδαλον . . . ἔστιν] The stumbling-block may be that which 
a may pts either in his own way, or in that of his neighbour. 
The“word is not found elsewhere in the Johannine books, 
except Apoc. il. 14 (βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ). 
The verb is found in Jn. vi. 61, xvi. 1. The general usage of 
the New Testament, and perhaps the use of the verb in the 


40 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [ 11. 10-19. 


Fourth Gospel, is in favour of the second interpretation. And 
it gives a possible sense. He who loves his neighbour not only 
abides in the light himself, but is also free from the guilt of 
causing others to offend. But the general context almost 
requires the other explanation. The effect of love and hate on 
the man himself is the subject of the whole passage. The 
sphere of his moral and spiritual progress or decline is regarded 
as being within himself. The occasions of falling are within. 
f. Hos. iv. 17, ἔθηκεν ἑαυτῷ σκάνδαλα. This may be suggested 
y what is probably the true form of the text, σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ 
δὺκ ἔστιν, internal stumbling-block, causing offence within, there 
is none. Possibly ἐν αὐτῷ may refer to ἐν τῷ φωτί, “In the 
light there is nothing to cause stumbling.” Cf., however, Jn. xi. 
9, 10. For the phrase itself we may compare the Rabbinic 
2 πὸ ΠΡ $217 quoted by Schlatter from Sifre, Num. v. 15. 


ev aura BK L Pal. pler. cat. vg. syr? arm. Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] post 
εστιν δὲ AC 5. 105 js τὴ syrs“* sah. Leif. 


11. The first part of this verse repeats verse 9. The 
remainder emphasizes the dangers of the state described. The 
man’s mental, moral, and spiritual state must affect his conduct. 
He “walks” in that in which he “is.” He who walks about in 
darkness can have no idea whither he is going. At every 
moment he is in danger of falling. Hatred perverts a man’s 
whole action, and prevents conscious progress toward any 
satisfactory goal. The darkness in which he has chosen to 
abide (μισῶν) has deprived him of the use of those means which 
he possesses of directing his course aright. It is an over- 
fanciful interpretation which sees in the last words of the verse 
any reference to the idea that darkness, or want of the oppor- 
tunity of using them, actually destroys the organs of vision. 
There is no reason to suppose that the writer had this physical 
truth in view as he wrote. He may be thinking of Is. vi. 10; 
comp. Ro. xi. 8-10 and the close parallel in Jn. xii. 35. 


ἐστιν] μενει P, 
Tous οφθαλμους] post αὐτου 2° 3. 42. 57. 95. IOI. 
αὐτου 2°] om. A? δΙθ1 (261). 


12-17. Warning against love οἵ the World. The appeal 
based on the readers’ position and attainments. 

12-14. Grounds of the appeal. 

15-17. Warning. 

12. Before passing on to the more direct application of the 
general principles which he has now stated in outline, the writer 
reminds his readers of what their position is and what is involved 
in it He knows that they are harassed by doubts as to the 


ΠΤ 12:| NOTES ON I JOHN 41 


validity of their Christian position, so he hastens to assure them 
of it, and to use his assurance as the ground of the appeal which 
he is making. He writes to them the Epistle which is in course 
of composition (γράφω), because they ave already members of the 
community of light. In virtue of what Christ is and has done, 
the sin which separates them from God has been, actually in part, 
potentially altogether, removed. The old, in their experience, and 
the young, in their strength, have a power which stands them in 
good stead. They cam enjoy fellowship with God who is light, 
and in the communion of that fellowship they can see clearly so 
as to “walk” without stumbling, to avoid the false allurements 
of the world, and the consequences which would follow their 
acceptance of the false teaching of the many antichrists whose 
presence shows that the last hour is come. And the reasons 
which led him to write that part of his letter which has already 
been penned (ἔγραψα; cf. 27, where the ταῦτα shows that the 
reference is to the preceding verses) are similar. Those who 
have learned by experience the truth of the Fatherhood of God 
can confess the sins which their Father is faithful and just to 
forgive, and as παιδία who need and can obtain fatherly discipline 
and guidance they can go forward in the strength of love. Thus 
their position as Christians is the ground of his appeal. Much 
can be said to them which it would be impossible to address to 
those outside. Most, in fact, of what he has to say is of the 
nature of calling to remembrance that which they already know. 
The true safeguard against their present dangers lies in their 
realizing their Christian position, in carrying out in life the faith 
and knowledge which they already possess, in rekindling the 
enthusiasm of earlier days which has now grown cold. The 
experience of age, and the vigour of youth and early manhood, 
supply all that is needed to restore health in Christian thought 
and life. The life of the society is safe if the two classes of 
which it is composed will contribute of their treasure to the 
common store, and use for themselves and for the community 
the powers of which they are in actual possession. 

γράφω] The present naturally refers to that which is in the 
course of composition, the letter as a whole. The present tense 
is used in i. 4, il. 1, 13 (47s). In each case the reference may be 
to the whole Epistle, though where ταῦτα is used it has suggested 
to some the probability of a more limited reference. The 
simplest explanation of the use of the aorist in ver. 14 (ἔγραψαν) is 
that the writer turns back in thought to that part of the letter 
which he has already finished, the writing of which can now be 
regarded as a simple complete act. Of the many explanations 
which have been offered this would seem on the whole to be 
the most natural, and least unsatisfactory. The suggestion that 


42 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [Ππ| 15: 


the author wished to vary the monotony of six repetitions of the 
same word need hardly be taken seriously. He is afraid neither 
of monotony nor of repetition, and the slight changes which he 
introduces into his repetitions are seldom, if ever, devoid of 
significance. A reference to a former document, either the 
Gospel, or a lost Epistle, is not probable. The reasons given 
for having written do not suit the Gospel, while they fit it 
admirably with the present Epistle, and with that part of it 
which has already taken shape. The Gospel was undoubtedly 
written for Christians rather than for those who were still ‘‘ of the 
world.” But its object was to instruct, to increase faith and 
deepen spiritual life, by imparting wider knowledge and clearer 
_ understanding of the real meaning of things already known. 
The aim of the Epistle is to emphasize the important points of 
what the readers have already grasped, and to persuade them 
to use their knowledge to meet present dangers. It was because 
of the knowledge which all possessed, of the Christian experience 
of the elder, and the strength and achievements in the Christian 
warfare of the younger among his readers, that he could make 
his appeal. But for that, he could not have written what he had 
__Written. _A-reference to a former Epistle must almost necessarily 
have been made clearer and more definite. It is, of course, quite 
possible that he had written to them before the present occasion. 
That the Canon has preserved but a selection of the Apostolic 
and sub-Apostolic correspondence is proved by the references 
contained in the Pauline Epistles, and probably in 3 Jn. 9. 
And if such a letter had been written, it might have been mis- 
understood and have required further explanation or justification 
(cf. Karl, p. 32), as S. Paul found on two occasions during his 
correspondence with the Corinthians. But there is nothing in 
the passage to suggest that this was the case. 

It is still more difficult to suppose that the presents and the 
aorists have exactly the same reference. The use of the 
“epistolary aorist” by which the author mentally transfers 
himself to the position of the recipients of the letter, or “regards 
his letter as ideally complete,” is established. But it does not 
give us a satisfactory explanation of the change from present to 
aorist. Law’s suggestion (Zhe Tests of Life, p. 309), that after 
writing as far as the end of ver. 13 ‘“‘the author was interrupted 
in his composition, and that, resuming his pen, he naturally 
caught up his line of thought by repeating his last sentence,” is 
ingenious. But again it must be noticed that there is nothing 
to indicate that such a break actually took place. Repetition 
with slight changes not insignificant is a regular feature of the 
author’s style. 

On the whole, the explanation to which preference has been 


iT, 12.] NOTES ON I JOHN 43 


given above is the best solution of a difficult problem, unless we 
prefer to leave it in the class of problems insoluble without the 
fuller knowledge of the exact circumstances, which doubtless 
made the writer’s meaning, and reasons for writing as he did, 
quite clear to those who read his words. 

texvia| The use of the diminutive is confined in the New 
Testament to the Johannine writings, with the exception of one 
passage in S. Paul (Gal. iv. 19) where the reading is doubtful. 
It occurs only once in the Gospel. Its use is comparatively 
frequent in the Epistle (ii: 1. 12, 28, ii. 7, 18,iv. 4, v.21). It 
is a natural word for the aged disciple, or Apostle, to use when 
addressing the members of a Church of whom many were no 
doubt his “‘sons in the Faith,” and practically all must have 
belonged to a younger generation than himself. Differences of 
meaning must not always be pressed, but the word expresses 
community of nature, as contrasted with παιδία, which suggests 
the need of moral training and guidance (cf. 1 Co. xiv. 20, μὴ 
παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν). Throughout the Epistle the word 
seems to be used as a term of affection for the whole society to 
which the author writes. The final warning of the Epistle (v. 21) 
against idols, literal or metaphorical, could hardly be addressed 
to the children as opposed to the grown-up members of the 
community. 

The regular usage of the word in the Epistle has an important 
bearing on the next difficulty which these verses present, the 
question whether a double or triple division of the readers is 
intended. In the former case the clauses containing the 
vocatives texvia and παιδία are addressed to the whole com- 
munity, which is then divided into the two classes of πατέρες 
and νεανίσκοι. This is now generally recognized as the most 
satisfactory interpretation. A triple division in which fathers 
are the middle term, could only be accepted as a last necessity. 
It might be possible, as Karl maintains, that the writer should 
first state the two extremés and then add the mean. But it is 
in the last degree improbable. Augustine’s explanation, “ Filioli, 
quia baptismo neonati sunt, patres, quia Christum patrem et 
antiquum dierum agnoscunt, adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et 
ualidi,” fails to justify the relative position of the last two terms. 
And both terms, rexvia and παιδία, have their significance as 
addressed to the whole body. All the children of the Kingdom 
share in the forgiveness of sins which Christ has won for them, 
and all are παιδία ; for the teaching and exhortation, which he has 
found it necessary to impart to them, show that none of them 
has finished his Christian education. Not even the eldest 
of them is as yet τέλειος. 

ὅ ι] The third difficulty of the passage is the meaning of 


44 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [11. 12. 


ὅτι. Does it introduce the contents of what is written, or the 
reasons for writing? Usage is probably in favour of the 
“causal” meaning. ‘There is no certain ‘instance in the Epistle 
of the use of ὅτι after γράφω in the “declarative” sense (cf. 
ver. 21). The “contents” are generally expressed by an objec- 
tive accusation (ταῦτα, ἐντολὴν καινήν). But this is not decisive. 
It is a question which must be decided by the general mean- 
ing of the individual passage. In these verses the causal 
meaning certainly gives the better sense. Rothe, indeed, makes 
out a case for the declarative. ‘‘Here again (as in i. 5) 
John gives expression in another pregnant formula to that 
which he has to say to them. Shortly summarized it is this. 
He would have them know that in their case none of the 
necessary conditions for a complete Christianity are wanting, in 
all its real earnestness and joyful confidence. He adds further 
that this is not the first time that he has written this to them” 
(Der erste Brief Johannis, p. 61f.). In other words, he has 
nothing new to tell them as Christians. He is merely reminding 
them of what they are. But surely the writer is doing more than 
this. He does not merely remind them of their Christian 
standing. He is trying to show them how their position as 
Christians enables them to meet the dangers to which they are 
exposed, and so to justify and enforce the appeal which he is 
making. It is decause they are in fellowship with God and 
have real experience of the Fatherhood of God that he can 
appeal to them with confidence that his appeal will meet with a 
response. 

ἀφέωνται] Cf. Lk. v. 20, 23, vii. 47, 48, and (probably) Jn. 
xx. 22. The present is used in Matthew and Mark. 

διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ] The “name” always stands for that which 
is implied by the name. In Jewish thought the name is never 
merely appellative. Because Christ is what He is, and has done 
what He has done, true relations between God and man have 
again become possible. If any definite name is intended, it is 
probably the name “ Jesus Christ” (cf. ii. 1). The expression 
is not the mere equivalent of ‘‘because of His position as 
Paraclete and Propitiation.” See Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the 
Apostles, p. 475. 

The origin of the phrase is probably to be found in the Old 
Testament doctrine that God continued His kindness to Israel, 
in spite of their rebelliousness, for His name’s sake. Cf. 
especially Ezk. xx. 8, 9, ‘‘ They rebelled—but I wrought for My 
name’s sake”; xxxvi. 22, “I do not this for your sakes, O house 
of Israel, but for Mine holy name.” It has, however, acquired a 
somewhat different meaning as used by the author. We may 
also compare the Rabbinic parallel, quoted by Schlatter, ‘‘ The 


II. 12, 13.] NOTES ON I JOHN 45 


wise say, For His name’s sake He dealt with them (inv 10d 
piaay nvy, Mechilta, Ex. xiv. 15, 296). 


Texvia] TeKvaI. 10. 40: παιδια 27. 29. 66**. 68. 103. 106 al.!° sah. cat. 


Sev. 
υμιν] ὑμων L 31. 68. 99 as 1501 kscr sah, 


18. πατέρες] The word is more naturally taken as referring 
to actual age than to length of Christian experience. ‘The 
knowledge which comes of long experience is the characteristic 
endowment of mature years.” But the τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς shows that 
the writer is thinking of length of years as giving the opportunity 
of maturity of Christian experience. And he writes in full view 
of the circumstances. The full significance of the Person of 
Jesus Christ was apprehended only very gradually either in the 
society of His followers, or by its individual members. And in 
the knowledge which had been thus slowly gained was to be 
found the corrective of the false views which were leading men 
astray (ver. 27). The knowledge of the fathers, as well as the 
strength of the young men, was needed to meet the difficulties of 
the time. 

tov ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς] The Word who was in the beginning with 
God, of whose manifestation in human life the writer and his 
contemporaries had been witnesses, and in whom the “‘fathers ” 
had come to believe with growing knowledge and fuller convic- 
tion as they gained experience, though they had not seen Him. 
The phrase, ‘‘ Him who is from the beginning,” would have no 
special significance here as applied to God. On the other hand, 
the refusal, on the part of many among whom the writer lived, to 
believe that the pre-existent Logos had become truly incarnate in 
Jesus of Nazareth, and to go forward in that belief to closer 
fellowship, seemed to him to be the most serious intellectual 
danger which threatened the Church of his day. 

νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν] “The characteristic of youth is 
victory, the prize of strength.” The conquest of evil, here repre- 
sented as the result of an active struggle with a personal foe (τὸν 
πονηρόν), is as characteristic of the earlier years of Christian 
endeavour as is the fuller knowledge gained through experience 
of its later years. The words have probably a primary reference 
to the victory which had been gained in the assertion of the 
truth, and which led to the withdrawal of the false teachers. But 
they were meant to go beyond their original reference. If it was 
“better age, exempt from strife should know,” it was also “ better 
youth should strive toward making.” And in both cases the 
appeal is made on the ground of what has already been gained. 
To the younger generation belonged the strength, already trained 
and tested, which the experience of the elders could guide. And 


46 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [11. 18, 14. 


both could rely on what had been acquired through past successes 
in the special efforts which the present and the future demanded 
from the whole Society. 

eyvwKate] εγνωκαμεν 7 53 161 (498), 

νενικηκατε] ενικησατε 7 62161 (408) K2, 

Tov πονΉρον] To πονήρον N 95. 

14. For the moment the writer’s thoughts turn back to what 
he has already written. In what he has already said he has 
treated them as παιδία, still in need of discipline and guidance. 
Their faith had not yet grown to maturity. And this was true of 
all alike, young and old, the thinkers as well as the soldiers of 
the Society. But it was in virtue of their Christian standing that 
he could speak to them as he did. In the Jewish Synagogue or 
in the Christian Church they had all learned to know God as 
their Father. The elders among them had made real progress 
in their realization of what the Christ really is. The younger 
and more active converts had gained the strength which comes 
of victory over evil. Perhaps they had rendered conspicuous 
service in the recent crisis. And their powers had matured in 
the strife. The message of the Gospel was a living force within 
them, and permanently active. It was abiding in them. There 
were flaws in the work which needed mending. It had been 
necessary to treat them, young and old alike, as not yet “ grown 
up.” The false pleas which many among them were only too ready 
to listen to, if not to urge, must be sharply and clearly exposed. 
Statements which they might well make, perhaps in some cases 
had made, must be called quite definitely “lies.” He must not 
shrink from plain language. But he could never have ventured 
to use the language which he had not hesitated to address to 
them, had it not been for the great progress which they had 
already made in the things of Christ. Strength and experience 
were really theirs. Reproofs could be uttered and appeals made 
with full confidence of success. Their Christian faith was sound, 
even though their hands might be slack, and their minds some- 
what listless. For them victory and knowledge were abiding 
results, and not mere incidents in past history. 

ἔγραψα] Cf. the notes on ver.12. The γράφω of the Received 
Text is probably due to an attempt to get a series of three in the 
right order of age, by correctors who failed to grasp the general 
arrangement of these verses. 

eypaya τὸ ἃ A BCL Pal.® cat. sah. cop. syr“t arm. aeth. Or.] ypadw 
K al. sat. mul. armc44 alia Oec. fu. demid. harl. Aug. 

eypawa 2°. . . apxys] om. vg-ed. 

eypawa 2°] scrzbo, vg-ed. 

εγραψα 3°] scrzbo, vg-ed. 

Tov ἀπ apxns] To απ ἀρχῆς Be 

tou θεου] om. B sah. 


1 15..16:} NOTES ON I JOHN 47 


15-17. Warning against love of the world. 

The writer appeals to his readers, on the ground of their 
Christian standing, to avoid the love of the world. For him the 
world is the whole created system, considered as apart from God 
and opposed to God. But there is a tendency to narrow down 
its meaning either to humanity as estranged from God or regardless 
of God, or to all that is opposed to the Christian view. Such 
love for the present and finite, either as a whole or in its several 
parts, excludes the possibility of the higher love, of God and of 
men as brethren in Christ, which is the essential characteristic of 
“walking in light,” and the observance of which sums up the 
whole of Christian duty in one command, at once old and new. 
The evil desires which assail men through the lower part of their 
nature in general, or through the sense of vision in particular, or 
through the external good which falls to their lot, if regarded and 
used as opportunities for display, have their origin not in the 
Father, but in the world which has broken loose from Him. 
And the world and the desires which it fosters are alike transitory. 
Only that which falls in with God’s will, and carries forward His 
purpose, is of permanent value and lasting character. 

15. 6 κόσμος is not merely “an ethical conception” in the 
Johannine system, “mankind fallen away from God.” Such an 
interpretation leaves no intelligible sense to the phrase τὰ ἐν τῷ 
κόσμῳ. It is the whole system, considered in itself, apart from 
its Maker, though in many cases the context shows that its 
meaning is narrowed down to “humanity.” In the view of the 
writer, no doubt man is its most important part, the centre of the 
whole. But here it is used in its wider sense. The various 
interpretations which have been given of the phrase can be 
found in Huther and elsewhere. The majority of them are in 
reality paraphrases of particular instances of its use. As con- 
trasted with 6 κόσμος, τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ are the individual objects 
which excite admiration or love. In the next verse they are 
spoken of collectively. Comp. Ja. 1. 27, iv. 4. 


οὐκ ἐστιν] post marpos P Aug. : post aurw 31. 

του matpos §% BK LP al. pler. cat. vg. sah. cop. syr“¥ arm. Or. Dam. 
Thphyl. Oec. Aug.] tov θεον AC 3. 13. 43. 65. 5Slect dscr harl. aethutr: 
του θεου kat πατρος 15. 18. 26. 36 boh-cod. (uid.). 


16. The attempt to find in the terms of this verse a complete 
catalogue of sins, or even of “ worldly” sins, is unsatisfactory. 
The three illustrations of ‘‘all that is in the world” are not 
meant to be exhaustive. The parallelism to the mediaeval 
uoluptas, auaritia, superbia is by no means exact. We may 
compare the sentence quoted by Wettstein from Stobaeus, φιλη- 
dovia μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι ταῖς διὰ σώματος, πλεονεξία δὲ ἐν τῷ 


«τα 


_ 


48 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 16. 


κερδαίνειν, φιλοδοξία δὲ ἐν τῷ καθυπερέχειν τῶν ἴσων τε καὶ ὁμοίων : 
but it is an illustration of the natural tendency to threefold 
division rather than an exact parallel. Still less successful 
is the attempt to find instances of the three classes in the 


| Temptation of our Lord. The “desire of the simplest support 


of natural life” is hardly an ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός. The first 
temptation turned on the wish, or the suggestion, to use super- 
natural powers to gratify a natural want. The “offer of the 
kingdoms of the civilized world” is not very closely connected 
with the “lust of the eyes.” Nor again is the “call to claim an 
open manifestation of God’s protecting power” an obvious 
instance of the use of gifts for personal ostentation. All such 
endeavours to find an ideal completeness in the ad hoc statements 
of aletter, written to particular people to meet their special needs, 
are misleading. 

The opposition in this verse is not strictly accurate. ‘The 
things that are in the world” suggest objects, whether material 
or not, which call out desires or boasting rather than the feelings 
of desire or pride themselves. But it is quite in keeping with 
the author’s style. 

τῆς σαρκός] σάρξ denotes human nature as corrupted by sin. 
Cf. Gal. v. 17 (ἡ yap σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ 
πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός) The genitive is subjective, the desire 
which the flesh feels, in that which appeals to the man as 
gratifying the flesh. There is no need to narrow down the 
meaning any further to special forms of desire. There is really 
nothing in the Epistle to suggest that the grosser forms of 
immorality were either practised or condoned by the false 
teachers. 

ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] The desire for all that appeals to 
the man as gratifying his sense of vision, a special form of the 
more general desire already described. Comp. πνεῦμα ὁράσεως, 
μεθ᾽ ἧς γίνεται ἐπιθυμία (Testament of Reuben ii. 4). 

ἀλαζονεία] Cf. Ja. iv. τό, viv δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονίαις 
ὑμῶν" πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά ἐστιν, and Dr. Mayor’s note, 
who quotes Arist. 221. Δία iv. 7. 2, δοκεῖ ὁ ἀλάζων προσποιητικὸς 
τῶν ἐνδόξων εἶναι καὶ μὴ ὑπαρχόντων καὶ μειζόνων ἢ ὑπάρχει. 
Comp. Zestament of Dan i. 6; Joseph xvii. 3. 

The substantive is found in Ro. i. 30; 2 Ti. iii. 2. Love of 
display by means of external possessions would seem to be what 
is chiefly intended here. Βίος is always life in its external 
aspect, or the means of supporting life. Cf. ili. 17, ὃς ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν 
βίον τοῦ κόσμου: Lk. vill. 14, xv. 12. 

ἐκ τοῦ πατρός] All such desires and feelings are not part of 
that endowment of humanity which has come from the Father. 
They are a perversion of man’s true nature as God made him. 


II. 16, 17.] NOTES ON I JOHN 49 


They have their origin in the finite order in so far as it has 
become estranged from God. 


τω] om, 785 200f 6457 ($3) 70 365-298%, 
ἢ 1°] ἐστιν 75.114 (335) 

καὶ 20] om. 7* 282 (231) Anp 1, 

v7] 3°] om. 78 264 (2 

οὐκ ἐστιν] post wrarpos 75 8180 (1310). 


17. All such objects of desire must in the end prove unsatis- 
factory, because of their transitory character. Permanent value 
attaches only to such things as correspond to God’s plan for the 
world and for men. He that fulfils God’s destiny for himself 
*‘abideth for ever.” ‘In the mind of God, values are facts, and 
indestructible facts. Whatever has value in God’s sight is safe 
for evermore ; time and change cannot touch it.” 


** All that is, at all, 
Lasts ever, past recall ; 
Earth changes, but thy soul and God stand sure: 
What entered into thee 
That was, is, and shall be.” 


αὐτου] om. A 5. 13. 27. 29. 66** arm?°P Or, 

του θεου] αὐτου 75 561 (308) 0%8, 

εἰς τον awva}+quomodo Deus manet in aeternum tol. Cyp. Leif. Aug. : 
+sicut et ipse manet in aeternum Cyp. Aug. :+quemadmodum ille qui est 
in aeternum sah. These glosses, which are not uncommon, especially in 
Latin authorities, have a special interest in view of the textual phenonema 
of ch. v. 


II. ii. 18-27. Belief in Jesus as the Christ the sign of fellow- 
ship with God. (Christological Thesis.) The truth in contrast 
with the second “lie.” 

(1) Appearance of Antichrists the sign of the end (18). 

(2) Their relation to the Church (19-21). 

(3) Content and meaning of their false teachings (22-25). 

(4) Repeated assurance that the Readers are in possession 
of the Truth (26, 27). 

18-21. The writer passes by a natural transition from the 
thought of the transitoriness of the world to that of its approaching 
end. The many forms of false teaching which have appeared are 
embodiments of the spirit of Antichrist, and therefore are sure 
signs of the nearness of the end. The coming of Antichrist had 
formed part of the Apostolic teaching which had been imparted 
to them all. His “coming” was a recognized sign of the im- 
minence of the Parousia. 

It is a matter of dispute whether the false teachers, or the 
spirits of error who inspire them, are to be regarded as so 
many precursors and heralds of Antichrist himself, in whom all 
the various forces of hostility to Messiah are to be gathered up 


4 


50 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [11. 18. 


for the one final conflict, or whether the many false teachers 
are to be though of as actual manifestations of Antichrist, 
convincing proofs™that the spirit of Antichrist is already present 
in the world. The form of the sentence, καθὼς ἠκούσατε. . . Kal 
νῦν is in favour of the latter explanation. ‘‘ You have always 
been taught that Antichrist is to come. The prophecy is now 
being fulfilled in the many Antichrists who have made their 
appearance.” Such an interpretation would be natural among 
the Disciples of the Lord. Had He not taught His Apostles to 
see the fulfilment of what Malachi, and others, prophesied about 
the Return of Elijah before the great and terrible Day of the 
Lord in the coming of John Baptist? And it is in complete 
harmony with the author’s way of thinking. In the Johannine 
teaching the present working of forces is not always clearly 
distinguished or sharply separated from their final manifestation. 
The author can speak of ‘‘ having passed from death unto life,” 
and still look forward to a “raising up at the last day” without 
betraying any consciousness of the supposed inconsistency, 
which a certain type of criticism has found in his method of 
presentation. He would probably have regarded with complete 
indifference the question of whether the many antichristian 
forces, of whose present working he was assured, were to find 
their consummation in the person of a single opponent before 
the final manifestation of his Lord and his God, or not. There 
is no reason to suppose that he could not have found room for 
such a figure in his scheme of expectation. ~His immediate 
concern is with the relation of the many false teachers, who now 
show forth the spirit of Antichrist, to the Christian community. 
They had separated themselves off from the society of Christians, 
and their action was to the writer clear proof that their connection 
with that body could never have been more than superficial. 
Those who had “gone out” could never have been really “of” 
the community which they had not hesitated to leave, or in true 
union and fellowship with the Christ. It was necessary for the 
health of the body that all such should be clearly seen to be no 
true members of it. Their true character needed to be disclosed. 
And the readers could discover the truth for themselves if they 
were willing to use and trust the powers of discernment 
which they possessed. In their baptism they had received the 
anointing of the Holy One, even as the Kings and Priests of 
the old Covenant were anointed with the oil which symbolized 
the gift of God’s Spirit. What had then been granted to a few 
was now extended to all. They αὐ possessed the gift of know- 
ledge which enabled them to grasp the truth of what Christ had 
revealed. In what he wrote to them the author was not teaching 
new truths. He was recalling to their mind what they already 


II. 18.] NOTES ON I JOHN 51 


knew. And knowing the truth, they knew that no falsehood 
could have anything to do with it. 

(1) 18. The appearance of Antichrists the sign of the end. 

παιδία] He still addresses them by the title which emphasizes 
their need of instruction and guidance. Cf. ver. 14, and perhaps 
ili. 7. 

ἐσχάτη ὥρα] The absence of the article emphasizes the 
character of the period. It suggests no idea of a series of periods 
of stress which are to precede the several comings of Christ. 
The conception of many partial “comings” has a very important 
place in the elucidation of the permanent value of the New 
Testament expectations of the Coming of the Christ, but it 
is not to be found in those expectations themselves. The 
Johannine teaching, whatever its origin may be, has taught us 
to spiritualize the New Testament expression of the doctrine of 
the last things. But the writer held firmly to the expectation 
of a final manifestation of the Christ at ‘‘the last day,” and he 
seems to have expected it within the remaining years of his 
own lifetime. When he uses the phrase ‘‘last hour” he clearly 
means the short period, as he conceived it to be, which still 
remained before the final manifestation of the last day. The 
phrase is found here only in the New Testament. The ex- 
pression ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα occurs in the Gospel (seven times), 
and never without the article. Its use is confined to the 
Gospel. Cf. Ac. ii. 17 (ai ἐσχ. ἡμὴ; 2 Ti. iii, 1 (oy. ἡμεραιὴ; 
I Ρ. i. 5 (ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ) ; Jude 18 (ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ). The use 
of ὥρα in connection with the coming of Christ is frequent in 
the Gospels, Mt. xxiv. 36 (=Mk. xili. 32), xxiv. 42, 44, 50, 
xxv. 13; Lk. xii. 40, 46. Cf Rosa ττῦς Apoe, i, 3: 

The “last hour” is the last period of the interval between 
the first and second coming of the Christ. Christian expectation 
had inherited from Jewish apocalyptic the doctrine of a period of 
extreme distress which was immediately to precede the coming 
of Messiah, and in which the hostility of the World Powers was 
to culminate in a single opponent. In the prevalence of so 
many false views about the Person of Jesus, and His relation 
to God, the writer sees the surest signs of their approach, 
and probably the true fulfilment of the prediction of His 
coming. 

καθὼς ἠκούσατε] Cf. Mt. xxiv. 15, 24; Mk. xiii. 6; Ac. xx. 30, 
and especially 2 Th. ii. 3. The subject formed part of the 
general apostolic teaching. As in ver. 24, the aorist refers 
to the time when they were instructed in the faith. 

ἀντίχριστος] The preposition can denote either one who takes 
the place of another (cf. ἀνθύπατος), or one who opposes (cf. 
ἀντιστράτηγος, used of the opposing general, Thucyd. vii. 86, as 


52 THE EPISTLES OF 5: JOHN [11. 18. 


well as in later times for the Propraetor). The word may there- 
fore mean one who, pretending to be oe Christ, really opposes 
Him and seeks to destroy His work. “The word is found in the 
N.T. only here and in li. 22, iv. 3; 2 Jn. 7. But though the 
word appears first in these Epistles, the idea is undoubtedly 
taken over from Jewish Apocalyptic thought, to which it is also 
probable that early Babylonian, or at least Semitic, nature-myths 
had contributed. “It is imposible to explain the references 
to the subject which are found in the New Testament (Synoptic 
Eschatological discourses, Pauline Epistles, especially 2 Th. ii., 
and Apocalypse) from the New Testament itself and the apoca- 
lyptic portions of Daniel and Zechariah. There must have 
been some popular_ tradition, at once definite within certain 
limits and varying according to the circumstances of the times, 
from which the N.T. writers have drawn independently. The 
late Christian writers, who may have derived the name from 
the passages in these Epistles, have certainly drawn their material 
from other sources besides the books of the N.T. The Johannine 
Epistles contribute nothing but the first mention of the name. 
The author refers to a popular tradition only to spiritualize it. 
He makes no substantial addition to our knowledge of its 
content (see additional note). 

ἔρχεται] 572 uenturus (vg.), cf. Mk. ix. 12, Ἠλείας μὲν ἐλθὼν 

. ἀποκαθιστάνει. The present expresses the fact as the subject 
of common teaching, rather than as about to be realized im- 
mediately. Cf. the use of 6 ἐρχύμενος, Mt. xi. 3, xxi. 9; Mk. 
ΣΙ Ὁ; Lk. Vil. 10, 20; xill. 35; Jn. Ὁ 15, 27, ‘vio ΠΡ ἘΠῚ ΤΣ: 
NGAI (ΠΣ στ Ane Lenk. ἢ 

γεγόνασιν] “have come to be,” “have arisen.” Their appear- 
ance was a natural outcome of the growth of Christianity. As 
the truth of what Christ really was came to be more and more 
clearly realized in the gradual growth of Christian life and experi- 
ence, those who had been attracted to the movement by partial 
views and external considerations, which had nothing to do with 
its essential import, were necessarily driven into sharper antagon- 
ism. Growth necessitated the rejection of that which did not 
contribute to true life. In the extent of such developments the 
writer finds clear indication that the process is nearing completion 
(ὅθεν γινώσκομεν). 

ὅθεν γινώσκομεν ὅτι] It is the writer’s favourite method of 
-exposition first to make his statement and then to state the 
facts by which his readers can assure themselves of its truth. 
When their first enthusiasm had died out, and delay had brought 
disappointment, the question was often being asked, ‘“‘ How 
can we know?” “From the fact just stated we come to 
know.” 


II. 18, 19.] NOTES ON I JOHN 53 


παιδια] αδελῴοι 75 115 (310). 

wpa 1°] for ry C*. 

και] om. k. 

οτι ἐξ BC K Pal. pler. cat. vg. syr“* aeth. Or. Epiph. Ir. Cypr.]om. A L 
17. 96. 100. 142 aeth’?. 

αἀντιχριστος &* BC 3. 5. 58let arm. Or. Epiph.] pr. ο δὲ" A K Lal. pler. 
cat. Thphyl. Oec. : αντιχρηστος 75 3961. 192. 178 (83), 

γινωσκομεν)] γινωσκωμεν A, ς 


(2)19. ἐξῆλθαν] Cf. 3 Jn. 7. The word indicates (1) that origin- 
ally they were members of the community, ‘they drew their 
origin from us,” (2) that they had now separated themselves 
from the community. It suggests, if it does not compel us to 
assume, that their ‘going forth” was their own act, and not 
due to excommunication. But it is useless to attempt to re- 
produce by conjecture the exact historical circumstances, which 
were too well known to both writer and readers to need further 
elucidation. The false teachers had ceased to belong to the 
community to which they had formerly attached themselves— 
of the manner of their going forth, or of the exact causes which 
led to it, we are ignorant. 

ἀλλά] In spite of their external membership, they had never 
been true members of the Body. 

οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν] Their connection was purely external. 
They did not share the inner life. 

et ydp| Cf iv. 20, v. 33 2.Jn. 11; 3 Jn. 3,7. As a rule; the 
writer uses the more “‘objective” ὅτι to state the cause. 

ἐξ ἡμῶν] The emphasis is now laid on the words ἐξ ἡμῶν. 
They were not ours; if ours they had been, they would have 
remained with those to whom they (inwardly) belonged. 

μεμενήκεισαν ἄν] The word μένειν, though it is here the 
obvious word to use in any case, had a special significance for 
the writer. ‘The slave abideth not in the house for ever. The 
son abideth for ever.” The test of true discipleship was to 
“abide” in the truth, as made known by those who had seen 
the Lord and been taught by Him. The writer cannot conceive 
the possibility of those who had ever fully welcomed the truth 
breaking their connection with the Christian society. External 
membership was no proof of inward union. ‘The severing of the 
connection showed that such membership had never been any- 
thing but external. 

μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] naturally expresses outward fellowship as distin- 
guished from inward communion. 

It was natural that the authors of theories of predestination 
should find in this verse confirmation of their doctrine. 

The writer follows his usual practice, which was also the 
practice of his Master, of making absolute statements without 
qualification. But the whole teaching and aim of his Epistle 


54 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [11. 19. 


shows that he recognized the danger, and therefore the possi- 
bility, of those who were truly ‘members of Christ” falling 
away. “The subject here is neither a donum perseverantiae, 
nor a distinction of the Vocatz and £lectt.” 

ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα] For the elliptic use of ἵνα, cf. Jn. 1. 8, ΧΙ]. 18; 
Apoc. xiv. 12. The result is contemplated as part of the Divine 
purpose. Some such phrase as τοῦτο γέγονεν must be supplied, 
or the sense may be brought out by a paraphrase, ‘‘they had 
to be made manifest” (“‘Sie so//ten offenbar werden,” Weiss). 

οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν] It is tempting to take the negative 
as qualifying πάντες, in spite of the fact that the two words are 
separated by the verb. In this case the meaning would be that 
the incident, or incidents, to which the verse refers served a 
wider purpose than the mere unmasking of the individuals con- 
cerned. It showed that external membership is no proof of 
inward union. Their unmasking was necessary, for not all who 
were external members of the Church really and inwardly be- 
longed to it. But the usage of the New Testament in general, 
and of the author in particular, is decisive against such an 
interpretation of ov . . . πᾶς when the negative is separated 
from the was. Cf. Mt. xxiv. 22; Mk. xiii. 20; Lk. 1. 37; Ac. x. 14, 
xi. 8; 1:Co. i. 29; Gal. ii. τό; Eph. ἵν: 20; v. 55 Jn. il. 15, 56, viigos 
1 Jnt ii. 5; Apoc. νι. τ, 16, 1x. 4, XVIll. 22, Xx.) ΖΦ, ΚΕ Ὁ, 
There is no parallel instance of od . . . πάντες where the words 
are separated. But the usage with the singular, and the influence 
of Hebrew and Aramaic forms of expression on the style of the 
writer, suggest that the plural should be understood as the 
singular undoubtedly must be interpreted. And the meaning 
thus obtained is supported by the context. The subject is, of 
course, the ‘Antichrists,” who have severed their connection 
with the Christian Body. The interpretation given above suffers 
from the extreme awkwardness of having to break the sentence 
by taking ὅτι in a casual sense. ‘Their detection had to be 
brought about; for all members are not true members, and the 
fact must needs be made clear.” It is still more awkward to 
suppose (as Weiss) that the sentence is continued, “as if ἵνα 
φανερωθῇ had preceded.” It seems clear, therefore, that the 
negative must qualify the verb, according to the usual construc- 
tion.of οὐ... mas, and 5y...N5. And the meaning must 
be,‘they had to be made manifest; it was necessary to show 
that none of them, however specious their pretensions, however 
much they differed in, character or in opinions, were truly 
members of the Body.”> The extent of the apostasy, and the 
variety of attack, had caused surprise and alarm. The writer 
assures his “children” that it had its place and purpose in the 
counsels of Him who saith, “A whole I planned.” The author 


II. 19, 20.] NOTES ON I JOHN 55 


finds comfort and assurance, for himself and for his readers, in 
the thought that whatever happens is included in the one pur- 
pose of God, however much appearances may seem to indicate 
the contrary. He has his own language in which to express 
the Pauline τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν. 
εξημων 3° BC 69. 137 aS arm, syrs etP aeth. Amb. Optat.] post σαν 
NAKL Pal. pler. cat. vg. Clem. Cyr. Epiph. Thphyl. Oec. Ir. Tert. Cypr. 


Or, Did. 


μεμενηκεισαν μεμενήκεσαν es 64 (262) 70 412 719 ς 7.4. ἐνεγήκασιν 
us 85 00; μενεγῆ 
78.304. 97H. 10* (433) 70 δδ8 7ο 858, 174, 


φανερωθωσιν] φανερωθη 69 ase 5 synch etP mg, 
ecw] noav 7**4 (328) (0174 Kr 4s, 
om. ΤΣ 69 as syr*tt Ir. Eph. 
ἡμῶν (?)] υμων He (Ψ). 

20. If the readers had trusted their own knowledge and 
Christian experience it would have been unnecessary for the 
writer to point out the antichristian tendency of the false 
teachers who had “gone forth.” The readers would have 
detected it themselves. What he writes is an appeal to their 
knowledge rather than an attempt to supply its deficiencies by 
instruction. In virtue of the gift of the Holy Spirit which all 
had received at baptism, they all had knowledge to deal with the 
circumstances of the case. See Findlay, p. 223. 

χρίσμα] The idea is suggested by the preceding ἀντίχριστοι. 
They had the true unction of which the opponents claimed to 
be in possession. 

It is hardly correct to say that according to its form the word 

ρίσμα must denote, not the act of anointing, but the anointing 
oil (.Sa/bo/, Weiss). Words ending in -a can certainly denote the 
action of the verb, regarded as a whole rather than in process, 
and in a sense corresponding to the use of the cognate accusative. 
The use of the word in the O.T., where it occurs chiefly in 
Exodus, points in the same way. Τὸ ἔλαιον τοῦ χρίσματος is the 
usual translation of nnvin pow, Cf. Ex. xxix. 7, λήψῃ τοῦ ἐλαίου 
τοῦ χρίσματος : XXXV. 14, το, XXXVIll. 25 (A, χρίσεως Β), ὙΠ Ἢ 
οὐ B), xl. 13, ὥστε εἶναι αὐτοῖς χρίσμα ἘΠΕ εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα (poly nan anny pnd ninp) ; ἘΧΧῚ 20. ποιήσεις αὐτὸ 
ἔλαιον χρίσμα ἅγιον (ἢ nnvin wow inks ΠΡ} ἔλαιον χρίσμα 
ἅγιον ἔσται (AYN wap novi ow). Thus χρίσμα denotes the 


act of anointing rather than the oil which is used in the action. 
It always translates ΠΣ Ὁ and not jow. 

Anointing was the characteristic ceremony of consecrating 
to an office, and of furnishing the candidate with the power 
necessary for its administration. It is used of priests, Ex. 
RIM ΧΙ es UES) ν᾿ ν᾿: 22: Nu. xxx.) 2: Of χοῦ; 
Fes pik, ΤΟ ΣΧ ΤΥ 1. XViy 302 37 K xix, 15, Τὸ): Of prophets, 


56 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [II. 20. 


1 K. xix. 16; Is. lxi. 1. Those who were so consecrated were 
regarded as thereby endued with the Holy Spirit, and with 
divine gifts. Cf. 1S. xvi. 13, ἔχρισεν atrov ... καὶ ἐφήλατο 
πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἐπὶ Δαυεὶδ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης : Is. ΙΧ]. 1, 
πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν (I) ἔχρισέν με. Under the new 
dispensation the special gift, which in old times was bestowed 
on the few, is the common possession of all. Cf. Joel ii. 28 
' (iii. 1); Ac. ii. And in virtue of the gift of the Holy Ghost a// 
have knowledge. The true text emphasizes the universality of 
the possession among Christians (οἴδατε πάντες), and not of the 
knowledge which it conveys (πάντα). The possession by all of 
them of the knowledge which enables them to discern, and not 
the extent of their knowledge, is the ground of the writer’s appeal. 

ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου] The evidence is not decisive as to whether 
the writer meant these words to refer to the Father or to the 
Son, or, indeed, whether he was conscious of the necessity of 
sharply defining the distinction. All things which men receive 
from the Father, they have from the Son, in virtue of their 
connection with Him. The definition of personality which later 
ages found to be necessary was apparently not present to the 
consciousness of the writer. Sometimes he distinguishes Father 
and Son with absolute clearness. At other times he uses 
language which may be applied indifferently to either. The 
relation of the Son to the Father is not conceived in accordance 
with ideas of personality which belong to later ages. 

‘O ἅγιος Tod Ἰσραήλ is frequently found as a title of God in 
the O:T.. (Cf. Ps. Ixx. 22, Ixxvn. 41; Is. 1. 4) v. τὸ; ἈΠ ἢ, δ 
XXK. 12, 15,,XXXVil. 23, xli. 20:/6 ay, σ᾿, xlill. 3) ΧΙν τα ole 
lv. 5. The absolute use of 6 ἅγιος is rare, and confined to late 
books, Hab. iii. 3; Bar. iv. 22, v. 2 (A, τοῦ aiwviov B); Tob. 
ΧΙ]. 12, 15 (κυρίου &). 

The usage of the Apocalypse (iil. 7, ὃ ἅγιος ὃ ἀληθινός) 
favours the reference to God. On the other hand, in Mk. i. 24, 
Jn. vi. 69, 6 ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ is used of Christ. And the teaching 
of the later discourses in S. John on the subject of the Mission 
of the Spirit by Christ, and in His name, makes the reference to 
Christ more probable. We may also compare Ac. 111. 14, τὸν 
ἅγιον Kat δίκαιον. The evidence, therefore, though not con- 
clusive, is on the whole in favour of referring the title to Christ, 
if a sharp distinction ought to be made. 

By their chrism they were set apart for the service of the 
Holy One, and endued with the powers necessary for that service. 
It is immaterial whether the writer speaks of God or of Christ as 
the immediate source of their holiness. 

καὶ οἴδατε πάντες] The reading of the Received Text is an 
obvious correction. It presents a smooth and easy text which 


11. 50, 21.| NOTES ON I JOHN 57 


is in reality far less suitable to the context than the reading of 
the older authorities. The emphasis is on “knowing.” This is 
brought out with greater torce and clearness by the omission of 
the object. Under the new covenant, knowledge is the common 
possession .of all. The chrism is no longer confined to kings 
and priests. ‘The gift of the Spirit, of which it is the symbol and 
the ‘‘effective means,” is for all Christians alike. Incidentally 
also the difference between the old covenant and the new serves 
to emphasize the more pressing difference between the claims of 
a select few to have a monopoly of knowledge, and the Christian 
view that the gifts of the Spirit are for all. Cf. Lk. xi. 13, πόσῳ 
μᾶλλον ὃ πατὴρ ὃ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν ; 

και 1°] sed vg. 

χρισμα] χαρισμα 75 5°? (776), 

και 2°] om. B sah. 

παντες ἐξ B P garm. sah. Hesych.] παντὰ AC Καὶ L al. pler. vg. cop. 


syr. aeth. Did. Thphyl. Oec. 
(?) om. odare, ~exeTe post καὶ 2° 5, 


21. The writer’s appeal to his readers to use their power of 
discernment is based on their knowledge, not on their need of 
instruction. But for such knowledge it would be useless to 
make the appeal. 

ἔγραψα] refers, as usual, to what has been already written, 
and especially to what immediately precedes. 

καὶ ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος k.t.A.] This clause may be either subordinate 
to the preceding one, depending on the verb οἴδατε, or co-ordinate 
with it ; (1) if ὅτι is demonstrative the meaning will be, ‘‘ Because 
you know the truth, and know that no lie is of the truth, and 
therefore must reject the lie the moment its true character is 
made manifest”; (2) if the ὅτι is causal, the sentence must mean, 
“1 have written what I have written because you have knowledge, 
and because no lie has its source in the truth. Those who 
know the truth are in a position to detect at once the true 
character of that which is opposed to it.” In the first case, they 
need teaching that the thing is a lie, and they will at once reject 
it. In the second, their knowledge of the truth enables them to 
detect at once the character of its opposite. The latter gives the 
fullest sense, and that which is most in harmony with the context. 
If he can but awaken their knowledge, his task is done. They 
possess the means, if they will only use them. The whole object./ 
of the Epistle is to “stir up the gift that is in them.” 

πᾶν. .. οὐκ ἔστιν] For the construction, see the notes on 
ver, 19. And for ἐκ, cf. vv. 16, 19 and Lk. xx. 5. 


ort 2°] om. J» 888 (266), 
και] om. boh-ed. 
παν] om. Ο. 


58 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [11. 22. 


(3) 22-25. Content and meaning of the false teaching, 22 ff. 
Falsehood finds its consummation in the one lie, which denies 
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, 2.6. not merely the Jewish 
Messiah, but also the Christ according to the wider conception 
of His office which finds its expression in the Fourth Gospel and 
in this Epistle. Such a denial is the very work of Antichrist, who, 
setting himself up for Christ, destroys the work of the true Christ. 
The denial of the Son carries with it the denial of the Father also. 
The false teachers, whether Jews who claim to worship the same 
God as the Christians after a true fashion, or ‘“‘Gnostics” who 
claim a superior and exclusive knowledge of the Father of all, 
forfeit their claim by rejecting the revelation of Himself which He 
has given in His Son Jesus Christ. “The confession of the Son, 
in word and in life, affords the only true access to the Father. 

22. τίς] Cf. ν. 5, τίς ἐστιν ὃ νικῶν... εἰ wy; there is no other 
exact parallel in the N.T. The expression is forcible. No one 
else stands for falsehood so completely as he who denies that 
Jesus is the Christ. 

6 ψεύστης] The article is not merely generic, denoting the 
individual who adequately represents the class. It denotes the 
liar, par excellence, in whom falsehood finds its most complete 
expression. Cf. Jn. ili. 10 (σὺ εἶ 6 διδάσκαλος ,). 

οὐκ ἔστιν] For the double negative, cf. Lk. xx. 27 (ot 
ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι) ; He. xii. 19 (παρῃτήσαντο μὴ 
προσθεῖναι). We are hardly justified in seeing any special force 
in the retention of “a redundant οὐ in a clause of indirect 
discourse depending on a verb meaning to deny” (cf. Burton, 
N.T. Moods and Tenses, p. 181, § 473). 

Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός] The following clause shows that 
ὃ Χριστός has come to mean much more than the Jewish 
Messiah. It includes a special relationship to God which was 
not a necessary part of Jewish Messianic expectation. 

It is not easy to determine how far there is any special 
reference in the phrase, as used here, to the separation of Jesus 
from the Christ, according to the Cerinthian, or Gnostic, dis- 
tinction of the human Jesus from the higher being, or ‘‘aeon,” 
according to later Gnostic terminology, who descended on Jesus 
at the Baptism, and left Him before the Passion. It may well 
include such a reference, without its meaning being thereby 
exhausted. The “ master-lie” is the denial of the true nature of 
the Incarnate Christ, as the writer and his fellow-Christians had 
come to know Him. Cerinthianism may be included, but 
Cerinthus is not ὃ ἀντίχριστος. And there is no reason for 
assuming that the many Antichrists, in whose appearance the 
writer sees the fulfilment of the saying ‘Antichrist cometh,” all 
taught exactly the same doctrine. 


II, 22.] NOTES ON I JOHN 59 


οὗτος] The liar, who denies the truth of the Incarnation. Cf. 
Mires γ Vi 710, Wins! XV. δι Jn. v.'6. 20: 2 Ππ 730. Phe 
reference of otros in this writer is always to the subject, as 
previously described. 

ὃ ἀντίχριστος] The writer spiritualizes, if he does not alto- 
gether depersonalize, the popular conception. The spirit of 
Antichrist finds its fullest expression in the denial of Father and 
Son. The writer is not specially interested in the literal fulfil- 
ment of the legend. He would probably have met curious 
questions on the subject with the answer, ἐν τούτῳ ὃ λόγος ἐστὶν 
ἀληθινὸς ὅτι ᾿Αντίχριστος ἔρχεται. πολλοὶ πλάνοι γεγόνασιν, οἱ μὴ 
ὁμολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, or words to the 
same effect. 

ὁ ἀρνούμενος κιτ.λ.] Cf. Introduction, p. xlii. Recent writers 
like Wurm (Die Jrriehrer Bibl. St. viii.) and Clemen (in 
ZNTW vi. 3, 1905, p. 271 ff.) are right in insisting on the 
importance of this and the following clause in determining the 
character of the false teaching combated in these Epistles. But 
the clauses do not compel the conclusion that the false teachers 
agreed with the writer in their doctrine of God, and differed only 
in their Christology. The writer sees in their Christological 
views the starting-point of their errors, and he points out that 
these views involve wholly false conceptions of God, and debar 
those who hold them from any true intercourse or conscious 
communion with the Father. He certainly draws from their 
Christology the conclusion that they “have not the Father.” 
But these words would apply to any teachers who claimed to have 
special and unique knowledge of the Father, not only to those 
whose views on the subject agreed with the views of the writer. 
There is nothing in the words to exclude a reference to Cerinthus, 
or similar teaching, although he held the Creator of the World to 
be “uirtus quaedam ualde separata et distans ab ea principalitate 
quae est super universa, et ignorans eum qui est super omnia 
Deum” (Iren. 1. xxvi. 1). It is therefore quite possible that a 
polemic against Cerinthus is included, even if we regard Irenaeus, 
rather than the reconstructed Synztagma of Hippolytus, as giving 
the truer account of Cerinthus’ teaching. 

The words would have special force if one of the most 
prominent of the false teachers had put forward the view that 
the giver of the Law, or the God of the Jews, was only one of 
the ἄγγελοι κοσμοποιοί, and not the supreme God. Such an one 
certainly denied not only the Son, but the Father as revealed by 
the Son. 

But the writer is not concerned with the details of a system. 
He is dealing with the general tendency of certain types of 
teaching. And his argument is that since all true knowledge of 


60 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 22-24. 


God comes through the revelation of Him made by Jesus Christ, 
before and by means of the Incarnation, those who reject this 
revelation in its fulness can have no conscious communion (ἔχειν) 
with the Father whom He revealed, whatever superior knowledge 
of God, as the Father of all, they may claim to possess. 


Tis]+-yap 7. 358 (56), 

εἰ μη] om. 79 114 (335), 

Inoous] pr. ο 7 559 (2), 

αντιχρηστος 75 382: 173 (231), 

Tov πατερα] To πνευμα 75 δ454 (262), 
νιον] +apvecrac H δὴ (Ψ). 


28. ἔχει] “45 one who enjoys the certain possession of a 
living friend.” Cf2 Jn. 9.1 

ὁ ὁμολογῶν] For the stress laid on ἀρνεῖσθαι and ὁμολογεῖν, cf. 
7π|1: 20; 1Χ 22, xii, 42. 


ΟΥ̓] om, 75 397 τη (96) 75 3864: + ow Δ" 
πὰς οἵη: MILES (712): 
0 Ομολογων . . . exer 2°]om. Κὶ L al. plur. Oec. 


24. ὑμεῖς] For the construction, cf. Jn. vi. 39, viii. 45, x. 20, 
xvi. 2, 24. The ὑμεῖς is placed in emphatic contrast with the 
Antichrists whose true position has been made manifest. The 
readers only need to make sympathetic use of what they already 
possess. ‘The truth which had always been theirs must be given 
full scope to abide and grow, and it will supply the answer to 
all new difficulties as they arise. It will enable them intuitively 
to reject all that is not on the line of true development. 

ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς] Probably refers to the beginning of their life as 
Christians. It may, however, include what many of them had 
heard in the Jewish synagogue. The true message ‘ began” 
with the beginning of the revelation contained in the Jewish 
scriptures. 

ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν κιτιλ.] The form of the sentence is characteristi- 
cally Johannine. By repetition, stress is laid on the importance 
of the teaching. It is an indication of the value set upon his 
words by the authoritative teacher, who knows the vital import 
of his message for those to whom he delivers it in their present 
circumstances. And the changed position of dm ἀρχῆς 


1 Some editors connect this with ver. 22, putting a full stop at ὁ ἀντίχριστος 
and a colon at τὸν υἱόν, thus: ‘* This is the Antichrist. He that denieth the 
Father (denieth) the Son also: every one that denieth the Son hath not the 
Father either.” But the ellipse of the verb would leave us with a very 
awkward sentence. It should be noted, however, that the maker of the 
Bohairic Version understood the words in a similar sense. ‘‘ This is Anti- 
christ, because he that denieth the Father denieth also the Son.” The same 
interpretation is necessitated by the reading of Ψ (see von Soden, 2226 
Schriften des NT. p. 1860). 


II. 24-26. | NOTES ON I JOHN 61 


emphasizes the approved character of the message. It reaches 
back to the very beginning. 

καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτιλ.] The apprehension of the truth leads to real 
communion with God through His Son. As truth is appropriated 
their fellowship with the Divine grows and becomes more real. 
It is obvious that to the writer μένειν means something more 
than “standing still.” It is the “abiding” of the son who grows 
up in the house. 


ὑεῖς 19 SNA BCP 13. 27. 29. 66**, 68. 69. 76. 81. rqlect 57lect ascr vo, 
syrP arm. Cyr.]+ovwv K Lal. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. It was natural 
that the frequent use of ovy in the Gospel should cause its occasional inser- 
tion by later scribes in the Epistle. 

amapxns 1°] om. 75 398 (307), 

ev (2 1°)] for καὶ 78 27. 20 261 (96) 05, 

nkovoate] αἀκηκοατε & (et 2°): ἡκουσαμεν 7595 (408), 

εαν 1°] pr. καὶ 7.551 (216): - δὲ A 5% (195), 


om. εν 2° &*. 


pewn] μενὴ K 95. 105. 

am apx7ns 2°] post nkovoare 2° δὲ (ακηκοατε) vg. harl. sah. cop. syrs“, 

ev 3°... πατρι] εν τω TaTpL καὶ εν TW VW N4. 5. 38. 68. 80. 98. 
104 csr hscr syrsch aeth. sah’. 

om. ev 4° B vg. boh-cod. Aug. | πατρι] πνευματι 78 8% (31), 


25. αὕτη] has been interpreted as referring either backward, 
to the abiding in the Son and in the Father; or forward, to the 
eternal life. In favour of the former it has been urged that the 
Gospels contain no definite promise by Christ of eternal life 
which would justify the latter interpretation. But there are 
many passages in the Fourth Gospel which clearly imply such 
a promise. And the reference forward is in accordance with the 
writer’s style. Cf. i. 5, etc. In either case the meaning is much 
the same, whether the promise is of eternal life, or of abiding 
communion with the Father and the Son. In the writer’s view, 
eternal life “consists in union with God by that knowledge 
which is sympathy” (Westcott). Cf. Jn. xvii. 3. 

αὐτός] Christ. Cf. iii. 3, and other passages, 

autos] om. boh-codd. sah. 
new] υμιν Β 31 am. fu. 
αιωνιαν Β. 


(4) 26, 27. Repeated assurance of the readers’ knowledge of 
the Truth. 

26. ταῦτα] What has been said about the false teachers, and 
how the danger can be detected and met (18-25). The 
reference to the whole section is far more natural than to the 
exhortation to “abide” only (ver. 24f., cf. Weiss). The words 
are not aimless. They serve to close the subject, and in con- 
nection with what follows to account for the brevity of his 
treatment of it. The writer has only to call to their remem- 


62 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [II. 26, 27. 


brance the essential features of their own faith, and the grave 
issues raised by the antichristian teaching. The chrism which 
they have received will enable them to do the rest for themselves. 
They are in possession of all that is necessary for self-defence, 
if they use the power which has been given to them. 

ἔγραψα] Cf. ver. 14. The clearness of the reference here 
points to the most probable meaning of that verse. There is 
no need to suppose (with Karl) that there is a reference to a 
former Epistle, which had been misunderstood, through the 
readers applying to the whole Church what had been said with 
reference only to the guilty members, who had now “gone 
forth.” 

πλανώντων] The danger is present and real, but the use of 
the present tense does not determine the extent to which the 
opponent’s efforts had met with success. Cf. Rev. xii. 9. 

TauTa]+de δὲ syrsch, 

πλανουντων A. 
πέρι. . . ὑμας] me guts uos seducat armM.; de 60 gui uos seducit 
boh-cod. 

27. καὶ ὑμεῖς] For the nominative absolute, cf. ver. 24. 
The position of ὑμεῖς is significant. The readers must meet 
the attempts to lead them astray by efforts on their own part. 
Warning and exhortation are of no avail without their active 
response. 

τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε] Cf. Jn. xiv. 26, xvi. 13. 

ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] From Christ, who is thought of as the source of 
the anointing, according to His promise to His disciples 
(Jn. xiv.). Throughout this passage, with the probable exception 
of ver. 29, αὐτός seems to refer to Christ. This is the customary 
usage of the Epistle, except where the context determines 
otherwise. 

χρείαν ἔχετε] Cf. Jn. 11. 25, xvi. 30; and with the infinitive, 
jp.) χα: το: 

ἵνα] One of the many instances of the purely definitive use 
of ἵνα. Attempts to find in it any ¢e/ic force produce altogether 
forced interpretations. 

The gift of the Spirit which they received when they were 
baptized into Christ’s name was an abiding gift (cf. Jn. 1. 33). 
Its teaching is universal, it covers the whole ground where in- 
struction is needed, and it is true. It is not the lie which the 
Antichrists have made of it. And though there was need of 
growth and development, all that was necessary and true was 
already contained implicitly in the teaching which they had 
received at the beginning. What they were taught at the first 
gave the standard by which all later developments must be 
measured. Their rule of life and thought, in accordance with 


II. 27.] NOTES ON I JOHN 63 


which they “abide” in Christ, is the true teaching of the Spirit, 
which they received from the first days of their conversion. 
They must abide “as He taught them.” The earliest teaching 
had not been superseded by a higher and altogether different 
message, as the Gnostics would have it. They needed no 
further teaching. What they had received covered the necessary 
ground. It was true. It had not been superseded by deeper 
truths. 

If this is the writer’s meaning, the second part of this verse 
(ἀλλ᾽ ὡς. . . αὐτοῦ) forms only one sentence: μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς. .. 
διδάσκει, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστιν. . ., καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν. The method 
of their abiding is characterized in three ways. They dwell 
in Christ, (i.) in accordance with the teaching which they have 
received, (il.) which is sufficient, and true, (111.) and permanent, 
never having been altered or superseded (διδάσκει περὶ πάντων, 
ἀληθές, καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν), though they are, or ought to be, continu- 
ally learning more of its meaning. 

It is, however, possible to divide the sentence and make καὶ 
ἀληθές, etc., the apodosis to ὡς τὸ αὐτοῦ x.7.A. “As the unction 
teaches all that you need to know, so it is true and no lie. And 
as He taught you from the beginning, you abide in Him (or 
possibly you abide in the teaching which was taught you from 
the beginning). You have not to learn a new and better 
Christianity.” 

But the introduction of an apodosis by καί is not in the 
writer’s style, and the result is a very weak climax. ‘The 
teaching you have received is not only comprehensive, it is true 
and not false.” On the other hand, if καθώς is taken as resump- 
tive, we get a natural sequence, which is quite suitable to the 
context and the writer’s general thought. The unction which 
they received gives a teaching which is comprehensive, true, 
homogeneous. The later lessons grow out of the earlier, which 
need not be unlearned. To abide in Christ is to live by the 
lessons which were first learned, the import of which has grown 
with the growth of their experience and spiritual intelligence. 
Some Latin texts make ἐν ait@=év τῷ χρίσματι: ver. 28 shows 
that it must mean “in Christ.” 

ἀλλ᾽ ὡς] The reading ἀλλά is obviously a correction to 
simplify a difficult sentence. 

μένετε] may be either indicative or imperative. The preced- 
ing μένει strongly supports the former alternative. Cf. ver. 29; 
Jn. v. 39, ΧΙ]. 19, xiv. 1, xv. 18, 27, where we have a similar 
doubt. 

ψεῦδος] not Yevdes, which falls short of it, in much the same 
way as in English “the statement is false,” would differ from 
“the whole thing is a lie.” 


64 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 27, 28 


χρίσμα 1°] χαρισμα Β τοῦδ. 

am] rap 75 Wt (83) 79. π4 40, 

μένει δὲ ΑΙΒΟΡ 5. 13. 31. 68 ds* vg. sah. cop. aeth. Ath. Did. Cyr. 

Thphyl. Aug.] post vawv KL al. pler. cat. syrP Oec.: weverw P 6. 7. 8. 

13. 27. 29. 31. 66**. 68. 69. 81. 137 aS* ds vg. syr? Thphyl. Aug. 
maneat (5. manebet) tn uobis arm. 

διδασκη] διδασκει CK L 13. 31**, 100. 101. 106 al.45: pr. scrzbat uobis 
aut boh. : διδαξη A δὲ (WY) 7 200 (-εἰὉ 5955 4-500, 

υμας (? 1°) nuas και ἡμεῖς υὑμιν 73 8 (56), 

αλλ ws] αλλα B 25 aeth. Aug. Hier. 

αὐτου 2°] avro A K Lal. longe. pl. cop. Thphy]l. Occ. Hier. 

χρίσμα 29] χρισματα 75 35% 173. 1402 (237): χαρισμὰ 10** : mveuua N* 25. 
81 cop. aeth. Cyr.:+0 ehaBere am αὐτου 75 5189 (1310). 

υμας 25 ἡμᾶς 27:5 (33) [* 70. 175, 

αληθες] αληθης &. 

ἐστιν ? 1°] 75.290 (56). 

Wevdos] Wevdes C (uid.) P: +22 eo sah.: mendax boh. 

και καθως} om. kat A sah. Aug. 

εδιδαξεν] εδιδαξαμεν 771% (61). 

ὑμας 3°] ἡμᾶς £* 179 (319) 28, 

pevere] μενειτε K Lal. longe. plur. cat. Thphyl. Oec.: peware 75. 2008 
(83). 

αὐτω] τω θεω 7: 8 (56). 

ὃ ? υμαφαυμας 78. 20f (83) εἰσ, 


28, 29. These verses are transitional, and it is doubtful 
whether they should be attached to the preceding or the 
following section. The “‘aphoristic meditations” of this Epistle 
do not always lend themselves to sharp division. 

28. The need of constancy, and its reward. Confidence in 
the presence of the Judge. 

28. καὶ νῦν] can hardly be taken as temporal, the exhortation 
to abide being specially needed in view of the nearness of the 
Parousia, which is expected in the immediate future, at the end 
of the last hour, which has already struck. The general use of the 
phrase seems to be to introduce a statement, especially a prayer, 
exhortation, or command, which is regarded as the necessary 
deduction from the requirements of present circumstances. 
‘Since the case is so,” “such being the case,” would perhaps 
bring out the meaning most oa by paraphrase. Cf. Jn. xvii, 
int Ac. iii. τῇ; vi. 34 (—Ex, UL τοῦ ΣΙ τα, xx 22. 25, ΣΧ ΒΟ 
Xavi; 270 5. | Contrast nae ΧΙ, 2255 ΟἿ also Ac. Vv. 28, XV 37. 

renvicl] The term of affection, which appeals to their common 
(spiritual) nature, is used to enforce the exhortation. Cf. vv. 
I, 12: Jn. xt. 33:5 Gal: v.19 3/1 Ji: Wy ons, ν- 20: 

μένετε ἐν and The words are resumptive of ver. 27. What 
is there stated as a fact (zzdic.) the writer now repeats as an 
exhortation. He would have them continue in that whicn they 
have. And their greatest possession is their personal fellowship 
with their Master. The strength of the Society lies in the 
personal relationship of the members to the Head. 


II. 28.] NOTES ON I JOHN 65 


The use of φανερωθῇ, and of παρουσία in the next clause, 
make it almost certain that the reference of ἐν αὐτῷ is to Christ, 
in spite of the difficulties raised by the next verse. 

ἵνα κιτιλ.] The nearness of the day affords a new motive for 
the effort to which they are urged. The nearer the Parousia of 
their Lord the greater the need of constancy. As soon as the 
last hour has run its course, the Master will appear, and will 
look for workmen who need not to be ashamed. 

ἐὰν φανερωθῇ] The ὅταν of the Receptus introduces a thought 
alien to the context. It would suggest an uncertainty as to the 
date of the Coming which is excluded by what has preceded. 
The signs of the time are clear. Events have shown that it is 
the “last hour.” The form of conditional used (ἐάν, «. subj.) 
introduces a pure possibility, without any hint as to the degree 
of its probability. If that happens which, as circumstances 
have shown, may befall them now at any moment, they must be 
in a position not to be ashamed, when the object of their longing 
expectation is there. 

φανερωθῇ] φανεροῦσθαι and φανεροῦν are used of all the mani- 
festations of the Lord, in the flesh, after the Resurrection, at the 
Second Coming. (Cf: (@)) Jn. 1 21, 11: rx, γ΄." 4:1 ΕΓ]. 26; 
Opts, cote Ὁ (Ὁ) ΓΜ τνὶ ne, τὴ. 7π| χει Fras πὶ 
Mines (Ὁ) Coli. Att ie bits τὸ (Οἵ 2.11 1 τοὺ: ΤΡ ive ἢ. 
The verb is used of the ‘‘ manifestation” of the works of God 
(Jn. ix. 3), and Christ is said to have “manifested” His name. 
It is never used directly of God in the N.T. Whether the 
**manifestation ” is to the eye of the body or of the mind has to 
be determined by the context. The word would seem generally 
to carry the suggestion that the appearance is not only seen 
but understood, or capable of being understood, in its true 
significance. 

The writer would hardly speak of the Second Coming of 
Christ as a manifestation of the Father, though doubtless he 
expected that through it men would learn much about God not 
known before (cf. Weiss). 

παρρησίαν σχῶμεν] It was natural that the rather abrupt 
σχῶμεν should have been altered to the more usual ἔχωμεν (cf. 
1 Jn. ili. 21, iv. 17, v. 143; Eph. iii. 12; He. x. 19, and contrast 
He. ili. 6). But the charge involves a slight loss of force. It 
is the fact of possession, not its continuance, that the writer 
would naturally emphasize. 

παρρησία is used especially of freedom or boldness of speech, 
in accordance with its etymological meaning. But it has 
acquired the more general meaning of confidence, as here. Cf. 
Lightfoot’s note on Col. ii. 15. It is a favourite word of the 
writer’s, who is responsible for 13 out of the 31 instances of its 


5 


66 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [II. 28. 


use in the N.T. In some of these passages the idea of 
“publicity” is suggested, but in probably every instance that of 
“boldness” or “confidence” is really most prominent. For its 
use in the LXX, cf. Lv. xxvi. 13 ; Job xxvii. 10; Pr. i. 20, xili. 5 ; 
3 Mac. vii. 12; for the corresponding verb, cf. Job xxii. 26; Ps. 
xi. 6, xciii. τ, As a rule it occurs in renderings which paraphrase 
the Hebrew, but in Lv. xxvi. 13 it is used to translate ΓΑ, 
uprightness. ‘I made you to go upright,” 2.6.,), as free men, is 
translated, or rather paraphrased, ἤγαγον ὑμᾶς μετὰ παρρησίας. 
The passages which best illustrate its use here are Job xxvii. 10, 
μὴ ἔχει τινὰ παρρησίαν ἔναντι αὐτοῦ; and Job xxii. 26, εἶτα 
παρρησιασθήσῃ ἐναντίον Κυρίου. Cf. also Test. Rub. iv. 2, ἄχρι 
τελευτῆς τοῦ πατρός μου οὐκ εἶχον παρρησίαν ἀτενίσαι eis τὸ 
πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ. 

καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν κ-τ.λ.}] Cf. Pr. ΧΙ]. 5, ἀσεβὴς δὲ αἰσχύνεται 
καὶ οὐχ ἕξει παρρησίαν. The idea would seem to be that of with- 
drawing ashamed from His presence, shrinking back from a 
sense of guilt. In this case the word is used as a middle rather 
than a passive. Cf. τ P. iv. τό, εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός, μὴ αἰσχυ- 
νέσθω. For the phrase, cf. Sap. Sir. xxi. 22 f. ποὺς μωροῦ ταχὺς 
eis οἰκίαν, ἄνθρωπος δὲ πολύπειρος αἰσχυνθήσεται ἀπὸ προσώπου. 
ἄφρων ἀπὸ θύρας παρακόπτει εἰς οἰκίαν, ἀνὴρ δὲ πεπαιδευμένος ἔξω 
στήσεται. Cf. προσέχετε ἀπό and φυλάσσεσθε ἀπό. 

He who “abides in Him” will have no cause to shrink away 
abashed from the Presence of the Judge, but may await His 
verdict with confidence as an ἐργάτης ἀνεπαίσχυντος (2 Ti. 11. 15). 

ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ] Here only in the Johannine writings. In the 
N.T. the use of the word with reference to the Second Coming 
is confined to Mt. xxiv., the earlier Pauline Epistles (1, 2 Co., 
1, 2 Th.), James and 2 Peter. 

Very interesting light has been thrown on the Christian use 
of παρουσία by the discoveries of papyrus documents and other 
sources of common Greek. Cf. Deissmann, Zicht von Osten, 
p. 268 ff. As he points out, the use of the word is best inter- 
preted by the cry, “See thy King cometh unto thee.” From 
the Ptolemaic period to the second century a.p. there is 
abundant evidence that in the East the word was the usual 
expression for the visit of a King or Emperor. In Egypt, special 
funds were raised by taxation to meet the expenses of such visits. 
In Greece a new era was reckoned from the visit of Hadrian. 
The earliest mention is rightly interpreted by Wilcken (G7rtech- 
ische Ostraka, i. p. 274 ff.), ἄλλου (sc. στεφάνου) παρουσίας ιβ΄ to 
refer to the collection made to provide a crown to be presented 
on the occasion of the visit ; and in the Tebtunis Papyri (48. 9 ff.) 
there is an interesting description of the efforts made by the 
village elders in connection with the expected visit of Ptolemy 11. 


II. 28, 29.] NOTES ON I JOHN 67 


(B.C: 31 3)» καὶ προσεδρευόντων διά τε νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας μέχρι. τοῦ τὸ 
προκειμένον ἐκπληρῶσαι καὶ τὴν ἐπιγεγραμμένην πρὸς τὴν τοῦ 
βασιλέως παρουσίαν ἀγορὰν 7. ... The same usage is found in 
Asia; cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge, 226. 85f. τήν τε παρουσίαν 
ἐμφανισάντων τοῦ βασιλέως (3rd cent. B.c.). The word is also 
used of the appearance of the god Asclepios in his temple 
(Dittenberger, Sy/loge, 803. 34, τάν τε παρουσίαν τὰν αὑτοῦ 
παρενεφάνιξε ὃ ᾿Ασκλάπιοςς. In Latin, Adventus was used in the 
same way. Cf. the coins struck to commemorate Nero’s visit to 
Corinth, Adventus Aug. Cor. Altars were also erected to com- 
memorate visits of members of the Imperial family, as in Cos, 
in memory of the visit of C. Caesar (a.p. 4). The word was 
naturally used by Christians of the advent of their King, whether 
they thought of the Coming as a first visit, the earthly life having 
been merely a condescension in which He appeared in humility 
and not as Messiah, or as a second visit. ᾿Επιφάνια seems to 
have been similarly used of the visits of the Emperor. Many of 
the words and titles which Christians loved to use of their Lord 
had a special significance as protests against the blasphemy of 
the popular Emperor Worship. 


rexvia]+mov Κ. h. 22. 37. 40. 56 bs Iscr sah. cop. 5075} aeth. : rexva 
413 (Ὁ). 

μενετε] μενειτε 11183 (61). 

εαν NABCP 5. 13. 26. 27. 29. 36 ds“ sah. cop. arm.] οταν K L al. 
pler. cat. syr"* Thphyl. Oec. : ove 75 “207 (96). 

σχωμεν NCABCP 15. 26. 27. 40. 66**. 68 dscr Thphyl.] exwpev 
&* K Lal. pler. cat. Oec. : Aabeat?s boh-ed, 

mappyno.av]+mpos avrov 7" 8 (56), 

αισχυνθωμεν confundamini boh. 

am avrov] post avrov 25 δὲ : om. arm-codd. 

am] map 69. 137 a: er H δ (Ψ). 


29. Doing righteousness, the sure sign of the new birth. 

29. In thought this verse is closely connected with the 
preceding. The ground of the appeal to “abide in Him” was 
their expectation of the speedy return of their Lord in glory, and 
their desire to be able to meet Him with confidence and joy, 
and not to have to shrink away abashed from His presence. 
This naturally raises the thought of the conditions which would 
make such a meeting possible. Those only who are His own 
can look forward with unclouded confidence, and His own are 
those who share His qualities, especially those which characterize 
the Judge, righteousness and justice. The doing of justice is 
the sure sign, and the only sign, that they are “born of Him.” 
And so the meditation passes over to the next subject on which 
the writer wishes to dwell, the being born of God. 

εὰν εἰδῆτε] The intuitive knowledge of what God, or Christ, 
is, makes it possible for those who possess it to learn by the 


68 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 29. 


experience of life (γινώσκειν) what are the true signs of being 
“born of Him.” To act in accordance with those qualities 
which correspond to His nature is the only certain sign of true 
fellowship with God, which is the result of the Divine begetting. 

ἐάν] A protasis introduced by ἐάν, c. swb7., does not necessarily 
present the fact as uncertain. If the condition is fulfilled, the 
results follow. No hint is given as to the probability of ful- 
filment. 

δίκαιός ἐστιν] It is very difficult to determine whether the 
subject of this word is God or Christ. On the one hand, a 
change of reference between vv. 28 and 29 would be very 
awkward, if not impossible ; and it is really certain that ἐν αὐτῷ, 
ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, and αὐτοῦ in ver. 28 must refer to Christ. No other 
explanation of ἐὰν φανερωθῇ and παρουσία is natural, or even 
possible. And these considerations almost compel us to refer 
δίκαιος to Christ. On the other hand, a change of reference in 
the verse itself is still more difficult, at any rate at first sight; 
and Johannine usage is almost decisive in favour of referring ἐξ 
αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται to God. To be “born of God” is a favourite 
phrase of the writer’s (cf. Jn. i. 13), especially in this Epistle 
(ili. 9, iv. 7, νι I, 4, 18), whereas he never uses the expression 
“to be born of Christ.” He does, however, speak of being born 
of the Spirit; and the language of the Prologue to the Gospel, 
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι (Jn. i. 12), the subject 
οἵ ἔδωκεν being the Logos, suggests a sense in which being 
“born of God” might also be regarded as being “born of 
Christ,” who is always thought of as being and giving the life of 
God which comes to men. 

It is more satisfactory to avoid any solution of the difficulty 
which might seem to presuppose a confusion of thought between 
God and Christ in the mind of the writer. Our inability to 
determine his exact meaning was probably not shared either by 
the writer or his readers, whose minds were full of the truth that 
Christ is God revealed to man. 

If, therefore, a change of reference is impossible, the whole 
verse is best referred, as in Bede, to Christ. The conception 
“born of Christ” is not antagonistic to the Johannine lines of 
thought, though the expression is not found elsewhere. We 
must, however, remember that abrupt changes of subject were 
natural to Hebrew thought and expression which are almost 
impossible in Western language. Their occurrence in the O.T. 
is too frequent to need illustration. And it is quite possible that 
the expression ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννῆσθαι may have become stereotyped 
for the writer and his circle, who would immediately interpret it as 
meaning “born of God.” Toa mind steeped as the writer’s was 
in the thoughts of God and Christ, αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος had perhaps 


II. 29. ] NOTES ON I JOHN 69 


become almost proper names; the context or the special phrase 
used would make it perfectly clear to the writer, and to his 
readers as well, what was meant. 

πᾶς . . . γεγέννηται] The doing of righteousness is the sign of 
the birth from God and its effect,—an effect which nothing else 
can produce, and so a certain sign. ‘The more logical order 
would have been, ‘“‘ He that is born of God doeth righteousness.” 


ednre 8 BC al. mu. vg. arm. Aug. syr“*t sah.] δητε AK L P al. pler. 
cat. cop. aeth.: odare J? 57 (1024) [4 6157 Je 551, 

om. και Β K Lal. pler. cat. am. harl. tol. cop. syrP arm. aeth. Thphyl. 
Oec. Aug. Amb. 

τὴν] om. 7} 386. 472 (214) Ze 364, 

yeyerynrat] γεγενηται P 31. 69%. 177* aS al. mult. syr. : - καὶ vt avrov 
οραται o δε ποιων THY ἀμαρτιαν οὐκετι opaTat υπ αὐτου 75 35 (2), 


ADDITIONAL NOTE. 


Though the name/Antichrist-occurs first in this Epistle in 
extant literature, the Epistte itself throws no light on its meaning. 
The conception cannot be explained from the N.T., or even 
from the Bible alone. The researches of Bousset and others 
have demonstrated the existence of a more or less definite 
Antichrist legend, independent of the N.T., and common to 
Jewish and Christian apocalyptic expectation, of which use is 
made in several N.T. writings. The legend cannot be explained 
on historical lines ; it received modifications from time to time 
in consequence of definite historical events, and the experiences 
of Jews and Christians at different periods. But it always had 
an independent existence. Historical events modified the ex- 
pectations for the future which find expression in its terms, but 
they did not create it. “Its origin is probably to be traced to the 
wide-spread myth of a primeval monster, consisting of, or in- 
habiting, the waters and the darkness, which was subdued by the 
God of creation, but not destroyed, and which would again raise 
its power against the God of heaven in a final conflict before the 
end of all things. This tradition, especially in its Babylonian 
form of the cleaving of Tiamat, the Sea-monster, by Marduk the son 
of Ea, who divided its carcase into two and formed the sea and 
the heavens, was well known among the Hebrews, and has left 
its traces in several passages of the O.T. It may be quoted as 
given by Gunkel from the cuneiform inscriptions (Schépfung und 
Chaos, p. 21). “In the beginning, before heaven and earth 
were named, when as yet the ‘ Urvater’ Apsfi, and the ‘ Urmutter’ 
Tiamat, mingled their waters, when none of the gods had been 
created, no name named, no fate determined, then first the 
gods came into being. They were named Luhmu and Lahamu, 
Asnar and Kisar, and last Anu. (The next sentences are 


70 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 


destroyed, but to judge from what follows they must have 
contained the account of the origin of the gods of the Upper 
World and of the Deep.) Then the myth relates how Tiamat, 
the mother of the gods, together with all the Powers of the 
Deep, rebelled against the Upper Gods. ‘The only extant part 
of this is a conversation between Apsi and Tiamat, describing 
their plan against the gods. Apparently the origin of light was 
described in connection with this rebellion. 

Next follows the description of the war between Tiamat and 
the gods. On the one side Ansar appears as leader. Anu, Ea, 
and his son Marduk are also mentioned. Luhmu and Lahamu 
appear in the background. On the other side is Tidmat, who has 
gained over some of the “gods” to her side. She created 
eleven fearful monsters, and placed the god Kingu as leader 
over them, whom she took for her husband, and laid on his 
breast the “amulet.” Against this host Ansar sent forth first Anu, 
then Ea; but Anu withdrew, and Ea was frightened and turned 
back. Finally, he betook himself to Marduk, Ea’s son, one of 
the youngest of the gods. Marduk declares that he is prepared 
to go forth against Apstii and Tidmat, but he will only consent 
to be the avenger of the gods if they in full assembly ratify his 
authority as equal with their own. The assembly is called, and 
the destiny of Marduk is determined. His power shall be 
without equal, and his dominion shall be universal]. His word 
shall have the magic power of calling things into being and 
causing them to disappear. And as a sign of this a cloak is 
placed in their midst, which at Marduk’s word disappears and 
appears again. The story next tells of Marduk’s arming. His 
weapons are bow and quiver, a sickle-shaped sword, and a 
weapon which he receives from the gods as a present, apparently 
the thunderbolt, represented as a trident. He has also a net, 
the present of Anu, and all the winds accompany him as con- 
federates. Armed for the fight, he goes forth on his chariot 
drawn by terrible animals. 

As he approaches Kingu, and the gods, his helpers, who 
accompany him, Marduk challenges Tiamat to the combat, 
“Come hither, I and thou will fight.” When they fought the 
wise among the gods caught Tiamat in the net. Through her 
opened jaws he sent the hurricane, and filled her belly with 
fearful winds. ‘Then with the crescent sword he cut through her 
body. He cast her corpse away and stood upon it. Then 
Marduk overcame the gods, her helpers ; he broke their weapons, 
and cast them into the net. So, too, he made fast the eleven 
creatures. Kingu met the same fate. Marduk tore from him the 
“amulet,” and placed it on his own breast. Then he turned 
to Tiamat again. He split her head, and caused the north wind 


II. | NOTES ON I JOHN 71 


to carry her blood to hidden places. The gods, his fathers, offer 
presents to the victor. 

Then was the Lord appeased. He divided the body of 
Tiamat into two parts. Of the one part he made the vault 
of heaven, and placed before it bars and watchers, that the waters 
should not stream forth. He placed the vault of heaven over 
against the primeval ocean, and built the heavens as a palace, 
corresponding to the primeval ocean, conceived of as a palace. 
Then Marduk created the stars, the sun and the moon, and the 
other planets ; he placed the stars of the zodiac, and determined 
the course of the stars and the twelve months. The following 
tablets are lost; there is extant only a small fragment which deals 
with the creation of animals, in which these classes of land 
animals are distinguished, cattle, wild animals, and reptiles. The 
myth closes with a hymn in honour of Marduk, to whom are 
given names which celebrate his power as Lord of all, ‘‘as sheep 
may he tend the gods, all of them.” 

There are many traces of this or similar myths to be found 
in the O.T., though the number of them may have been 
exaggerated by Gunkel. The most important are perhaps 
PS ΠΡ Ὁ hss laxxix τὸ Ππ 300 axxvis aah ΙΧ τῦ; 15. xxx 7 
(especially if the pointing navian be adopted); Ps. xl. 5, 
᾿ΕΝ Τ2  τὸὋ: Is; αν 1: Job xl 25;/ ΧΠ 20; ΕΖ sox, 
3-6a, xxxii. 2-8. These passages suggest that such myths were 
popular in Israel, and used by prophets and other writers to 
illustrate and emphasize their warnings and teaching. The points 
of similarity between the Hebrew and Babylonian myths on 
which Gunkel lays stress are the following (p. 112 ff.). Origin- 
ally the ‘‘all” was water. The primeval ocean was personified 
as a fearful monster. The Babylonian Tiamat corresponds to 
the Hebrew ninn, which is always used anarthrously as a proper 
name. The common Hebrew name for the monster Rahab 
may have its parallel in Babylonian myth, but this is not proved. 
Both myths represent the monster as a dragon, and with many 
heads. Other similar beings are mentioned, the ‘‘helpers” of 
the dragon, among whom one is prominent. In Babylonian 
myths, Kingu is associated with Tiamat; in Hebrew we find 
Rahab and Tannin, Leviathan and Tannin, Leviathan and 
Behemoth, Rahab and Nahas Bariah. In Henoch (ch. 1x), 
Behemoth and Leviathan are represented as male and female, as 
are Kingu and Tiamat in the Babylonian story. 

These powers of the deep are in the Babylonian legend 
opposed to the gods of the Upper World, among whom Marduk 
is predominant. Even in the Hebrew story the appearance of 
other gods seems occasionally to be referred to (Job xli. 25, 
Xxxviln.7 5 Ps, lxxxix, 7). 


72 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [11. 


The monsters rebel against the Upper Gods, and claim 
the sovereignty of the World for themselves. In the Hebrew 
story the special trait of the opponents of Jahve is their overruling 
and rebellious pride. 

Before Marduk’s victory, other gods had attempted the fight. 
There is perhaps a similar reference in Job xli. 11, 25. 

Then Marduk appears. His arming is described. He 
comes on a chariot with horses, armed with sword and net, or 
with the terrible weapons of the thunder god. 

Before the fight there are shrieks of abuse or reproach. In 
the fight itself the victory is gained by wisdom rather than by 
strength. The “net” has its part to play. The helpers of the 
monster are overthrown, they bow beneath him. In the 
Babylonian story he “ puts them to shame”; cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 10; 
Job ix 23. 

The corpse of the monster is not buried. This is several 
times referred to in Hebrew. Out of it the God makes the 
world. In some forms of the Hebrew story the fruitfulness of 
land that before was waste is derived from the blood and the 
flesh of the dragon (Gunkel, p. 111). The Babylonian myth 
relates that Tiamat was divided in twain—into the upper and 
lower waters. In Ps. lxxiv. 13 we hear of the dividing of the 
sea, paralleled with the breaking of the heads of the dragons, 
and in Job xxvi. 13 of the bars of heaven (LXX, κλεῖθρα 
οὐρανοῦ δεδοίκασιν αὐτόν). At any rate, in both stories the victory 
over the monster is followed by the creation of the world. 

Whatever exact parallels may be drawn between the 
Babylonian myths and allusions to similar stories which may be 
found, or reasonably supposed to exist, in passages in the O.T., 
there can be little doubt that Hebrew mythology knew of some 
such fight between the God of their race and the primeval 
monster of the deep. One particular form in which the myth 
seems to have been known is of special interest in connection 
with the legend of Antichrist. “In at least one version the 
Dragon or monster was represented as not destroyed, but 
overcome. According to Is. xxx. 7, it is “brought to rest.” 
When God captured him, he “‘ spake soft words,” and became His 
servant for ever (Job xli. 3, 4). God “played” with him (Job 
xli. 5; Ps. civ. 26). He lay at the bottom of the deep, but he 
must obey God (Am. ix. 3). He could still be dangerous, so 
God set watchers over him (Job vii. 12). He is put to sleep, but 
he still could be ‘‘ waked” (Job iii. 8, xli. 10). Bars were 
placed to prevent his breaking forth (? Job xxvi. 13 LXX). 

Thus the starting-point of the legend is probably to be found 

lin the stories of the combat between God and the primeval 
; 1 If Gunkel is right in pointing naw 07 as a passive participle. 


11.] NOTES ON I JOHN 73 


monster, which was overcome and bound, but not killed; and 
which should once more break forth and rebel against God, to 
a overthrown in a final victory before the end of all things. 
ut it took more definite shape in forms which reflected the 
experiences of the people at the hands of their enemies. Many 
of the passages which speak of the quelling of the sea describe 
also the subduing of the peoples who set themselves against God. 
In consequence of the sufferings of the people at the hands of 
their enemies, the doctrine was developed that Israel was indeed 
the chosen of God, but that for their sins they had been given 
over to the heathen powers ; and this led to the expectation of a 
great final struggle with the World-Powers before the perfecting 
of the kingdom. This is clearly seen in Ezk. (xxxvill. 2, xxxix. 
1, 6) in the prophecy of Gog, the prince of Magog, and the 
gathering of the Northern nations, regarded as types of the 
World-Power from which the final outburst against the people of 
the Lord should come. Zec. xii.—xiv. describes the final oppres- 
sion of the people by the hostile powers. All nations are 
gathered against Jerusalem (xiv. 2), and the Lord appears on 
the Mount of Olives to save His people. 

The attempt of Antiochus 1v. (Epiphanes—God manifest in 
human form) of Syria to suppress Judaism and to Hellenize the 
nation, naturally led to further development of the idea. The 
World-Power is no longer an instrument for punishment in 


of Daniel is to be interpreted as the “smoke of the heathen 
sacrifice in the Temple, ascending from the altar erected there 
to Zeus in Dec. 168” or not, the author of the book certainly 
describes the past and present history of God’s kingdom in 
relation to the World-Powers in the light of the events of that 
period, and points forward to a speedy rescue, and the comple- 
tion of God’s work for His people. 

The World-Power is presented first (ch. ii.) as a colossal image 
of gold, silver, brass, and iron, which is finally shattered by the 
stone broken off from the mountains without human intervention, 
and later under the imagery of the four beasts coming up from 
the sea. The opposition of the world—as presented in the four 
successive empires, the Chaldaean, Median, Persian, and Greek— 
is to culminate in the “horn” on the fourth beast’s head, with 
‘“feyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great 
things,”—a clear reference to Antiochus Epiphanes. If the book 
was written at a time when the Maccabean successes had already 
driven out the idolatrous Zeus-worship from the Temple, the 
writer might easily expect a great victory and extension of the 
power of the opponent before the Divine intervention, when the 


74 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [II. 


judgment begins, the World-Power is overthrown, and dominion 
given to the “Saints,” ze. the members of the Jewish Church 
preserved through the great tribulation and cleansed by it. In 
Dn. vii. 13 we read that one like unto a son of man was brought 
before the Ancient of days, and dominion was given unto him, 
and a kingdom, that all people should serve him. As the idea 
of a personal Messiah became more prominent, the expectation 
of a single personal opponent was developed. But on this point 
(of a personal Messiah) Jewish apocalyptic varied frequently 
during the next two centuries. 

In Nu. xxiv. 17 the “Star” which shall come forth out of 
Jacob... and break down all the sons of tumult must be 
noticed, and the Septuagint translation of ver. 7 is significant : 


ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ, 
καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν" 

καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Tay βασιλεία (εαυτου A F), 
καὶ αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ. 


a o θ΄ have ὑπὲρ Tey, which is still clearer. The Hebrew 33ND 
was read as δ). The Septuagint translation seems to have 
been coloured by the expectations of Messiah and Antichrist. 

The Third Book of the Sibyllines (iii. 652), which is generally 
attributed to the Maccabean period, speaks of the advent of a 
King who shall make war to cease : 


καὶ τότ᾽ dm’ ἠελίοιο θεὸς πέμψει βασιλῆα, 
ὃς πᾶσαν γαῖαν παύσει πολέμοιο κακοῖο, 
ods μὲν ἄρα κτείνας, οἷς δ᾽ ὅρκια πιστὰ τελέσσας. 


But the storm is to burst from many points, and is directed 
against God’s people and house, not against the Messiah. And 
there is no single opponent. Gog and Magog are the names of 
lands : 


Cf. 319, ala? col, χώρα Τὼγ ἠδὲ Μαγὼγ μέσον οὗσα 
Αἰθιόπων ποταμῶν. 


According to Sieffert, Palestinian pre-Christian literature has no 
personal anti-Messiah. 

In the Book of Enoch xc. 16 it is predicted that other parts 
of the Macedonian Empire, under the leadership of Greeks, will 
gather themselves together against the people. ‘“ All the eagles 
and vultures and ravens and kites assembled together and brought 
with them all the sheep of the field (apostate Jews), and they all 
came together and helped each other to break that horn of the 
ram. 1g. And I saw till a great sword was given to the sheep, 
and the sheep proceeded against all the beasts of the field to 
slay them; and all the beasts and the birds of heaven fled before 
their face”; but in xc. 56 ff. the appearance of Messiah is first 


11.} NOTES ON I JOHN 75 


described after the close of the wars. Cf. 37, “‘And I sawthat a 
white bull was born, with large horns; and all the beasts of the 
field and all the birds of the air feared him, and made petition to 
him all the time.” 

In the Psalms of Solomon (B.c. 90), Messiah Himself destroys 
the foes by the word of His mouth, 


Cf. xvil. 27, ὀλοθρεῦσαι ἔθνη παράνομα ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ (cf. Is. 
xi. 4), and generally the whole passage 23-36. 


In the Fourth Book of Ezra, chs. xii., xiii., to which a Flavian 
date is assigned, and in which the fourth beast of Daniel is 
clearly identified with Rome, the heathen peoples are over- 
come by the Messiah, who comes out of the sea. Cf. xili. 5, 
“Lo, there was gathered together a multitude of men, out of 
number, from the four winds of heaven, to make war against the 
man that came out of the sea.” 

In the Apocalypse of Baruch (xl. 1, 2), statements in this 
passage are taken over to describe the destruction of the last 
godless king. ‘The last leader of that time will be left alive, 
when the multitude of his hosts will be put to the sword and be 
bound ; and they will take him up to Mt. Sion, and My Messiah 
will convict him of all his impieties, and will gather and set before 
him all the works of his hosts. And afterwards he will put him 
to death.” 

Thus in the Jewish literature which is unaffected by Christian 
modifications the development of the idea of Antichrist cannot _ 
be very clearly traced; but the idea is to be found there, gaining ~ 
or losing ground “fn accordance with the perpetually shifting 
character of Messianic expectations. 

It is easier to trace the development of the subject in 
Christian literature. The idea of the growth of self-seeking till 
it culminates in self-deification finds its natural sphere in 
Christian thought. And speculations about the spread of 
opposition to God and His Messiah are stripped of their national 
and political clothing and spiritualized. In the eschatological 
discourses of the Synoptic Gospels it is difficult to distinguish 
between original saying and subsequent interpolation and 
comment, even if we reject the view that they have their origin in 
a Jewish Apocalypse the contents of which have been put into 
the mouth of Jesus. But they are at least good evidence of 
eschatological views held by Christians at a comparatively early 
date. In Mt. xxiv. ff. there is no doctrine of a personal Antichrist. 
The βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως of Daniel, whatever be the exact mean- 
ing assigned to it by the speaker or by later interpretation, is 
connected with the approaching tribulations of the last days and 
the national sufferings of the Jews. The Son of Man, a title 


76 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN {II. 
which seems to be definitely Messianic, at least in the Similitudes 
of Enoch, is represented as about to come on the clouds of 
heaven (cf. Dn. vii.). But the hostile peoples are still conceived 
of as God’s instruments to punish. The ‘ kingdom,” however, is 
separated from the national fate of Israel. The ‘‘Son of man” 
is opposed, not as in Daniel by world-rulers who destroy the 
Jewish theocracy, but by false prophets and false Messiahs 
(Mt. xxiv. 5). Popular ““ Messianism” is rejected by Jesus in 
the history of the Temptation (iv. 1 ff.) and in the rebuke to 
Peter (xvi. 23). He condemns the selfish aspirations of national 
zealots (cf. Jn. vi. 15, x. 8, v. 43), though He can train the 
enthusiasm of such men to the better work of heralding the 
kingdom (Mt. x. 4). 

These views were taken up into the Apostolic preaching, and 
form the basis of what S. Paul taught at Thessalonica. He 
combines them with several traits clearly borrowed from Jewish 
popular expectation. The doctrine of one single opponent, in 
whom all that is antichristian culminates, is clearly seen in his 
conception of the Man of Sin. Whether the Second Epistle to 
the Thessalonians is genuine in its present form or not, there 
can be little doubt that the picture drawn in the znd chapter 
is mainly Pauline. Its exact agreement with the circumstances 
of his time is remarkable: or, at any rate, a perfectly natural 
interpretation of all that is said there can be found if it is explained 
on these lines. The coming of Christ cannot be till the apostasy 
is fully developed, and the opposition to the Christ is con- 
summated in the appearance of the Man of Sin, the Son of 
perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against all that is 
called God, and is worshipped, and sets up his throne in God’s 
Temple. Apparently this ‘‘Man of Sin” is to be an apostate 
Jew. The mystery of lawlessness, which is already working, is 
clearly the Jewish opposition to the work of Christianity, of 
which S. Paul had been the victim in every place where he 
had proclaimed the Christ since his conversion, and which had 
been specially virulent at Thessalonica (Ac. xvii. 5; cf. 1 Th. 
ii. 15, 16). Throughout his career, 5. Paul found in Jewish 
opposition the worst hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. It 
would reach its climax in the appearance of Antichrist. At 
present its working was restrained by the power of the Roman 
Empire (τὸ κατέχον), concentrated as it was in the person of a 
single ruler (6 κατέχων). Till a far later period of his life, he 
always found support and protection in the authorities of the 
Empire of which he was a citizen. It was an essential part of 
his conception of the last things that “50 long as Rome lasts, 
lasts the World.” This much is certain, whether or not we 
choose to see in ὃ κατέχων an allusion to the name of Claudius 


τ] NOTES ON I JOHN 77 


(gui claudit). But he was conscious of the weakness as well as 
the strength of the Roman position. And he expected its 
downfall, and the overthrow of all authority and law, during the 
time of stress which was to precede the “unveiling” of the 
Christ. The freaks of Caligula had brought this home to all 
thinking men. And in his picture of the Man of Sin, S. Paul 
borrows traits from the episode of Caligula’s attempt to set up his 
statue, in the guise of Zeus, in the Jewish Temple. Thus the 
opposition of Judaism, which had lost its opportunity when it 
crucified the Messiah, is the main factor in the war against the 
Christ. But heathen opposition had to be encountered as well, 
and in particular it had proved a serious obstacle at Thessalonica 
(1 Th. ii. 14) ; and this will account for any heathen traits in the 
picture of the opponent. 

It may be worth noticing in this connection that the thought 
of Jewish opposition and unbelief may help to explain a difficult 
section of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (vi. 14—vii. 1). 
If 5. Paul is there thinking first of the evil effect of Jewish 
companionship, though heathen contamination is not altogether 
excluded (ver. 16), the want of connection between the passage 
and the sections which precede and follow is less pronounced. 
And in later Jewish literature Beliar is the name for Antichrist, 
whether he is conceived of as apostate Jew (Ascension of Isaiah) 
or Roman Emperor (Sibylline Oracles, iii. 63, ἐκ δὲ σεβαστηνῶν 
née Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν, unless, indeed, the passage indicates a 
Samaritan origin of Antichrist). It is at least probable that when 
S. Paul wrote this section of 2 Corinthians, he still thought of 
Antichrist as the person in whom Jewish opposition to the faith 
should find its consummation. 

But, however this may be, it is at least clear that the passage 
about the Man of Sin in 2 Thess. is most naturally interpreted, 
if we suppose that S. Paul is developing a popular legend in the 
light of Christ’s teaching about the last things, his own experi- 
ences at the hands of his countrymen, the episodes of the 
desecration of the Temple by Antiochus and the attempt of 
Caligula to set up his statue within its precincts. Recent 
experiences and historical incidents have added new traits to a 
well-known popular conception. And both the legend and the 
events are needed to explain the picture. 

The use of the Antichrist legend is equally clear in the 
Apocalypse. Gunkel has clearly shown the impossibility of 
interpreting the 12th chapter on purely historical lines. And 
many of the details recall most vividly the legend of the Sea- 
monster, which shall once more raise war against the Lord’s 
anointed. It is very probable that a Jewish Apocalypse which 
itself borrowed traits from older mythological traditions to describe 


78 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [II. 


the birth of Messiah, born in heaven, caught up to the throne of 
God and hidden in the wilderness till the appointed time, has 
been incorporated by the seer, and adapted to the circumstances of 
Christ and the Church, the borrowed details in many cases being 
quite unsuitable to their new application, in order to comfort his 
readers with the thought that their sufferings are really but a 
stage in the working out of God’s purpose for their final triumph. 
That which is woe for the earth, is matter of rejoicing in heaven, 
when the Dragon is cast down, and the first stage in the process of 
his destruction is accomplished. The hostility of the Dragon to 
the Messiah, the consequent war between Michael and the 
Dragon and their respective hosts, the identification of the 
Dragon with the old serpent, the Devil and Satan, the deceiver 
of the whole world, and the Water cast out as a river to destroy 
the Woman, are all reminiscences of popular myths of which 
traces have been found throughout the O.T. and elsewhere in 
the New. 

In ch. xiii. 1 the beast coming up out of the sea points the 
same way, though here the adaptation of the myth to the circum- 
stances of Roman history are clear, whether the solution of the 
riddle of xiii. 18 is to be found in the older guess of “DP #179, 
and the sufferings of the Neronic persecution, or Deissmann’s 
suggestion of Καισαρ eos and the Emperor-worship of the time 
of Domitian, is preferred. 

Perhaps the clearest use of the Antichrist legend is to be 
found in xiii. τι, where the “two horns like unto a lamb” of 
the beast that came up out of the earth, emphasize his attempt 
to deceive by pretending to be the Messiah. 

The 17th chapter, which offers the clearest indications 
of the identification of the beast with Rome, now regarded by 
Christians as the great enemy, and no longer the restraining and 
protecting power which S. Paul found in the Empire, shows how 
the mythical figure gains new attributes in consequence of new 
experiences, but does not throw much light on the older myth. 
But the gathering together of the nations, Gog and Magog, for 

the war in xx. 7, 8, recalls the earlier feature of the legend. 
; In the Epistles of S. John there is no real use of the legend 
itself at all. They contribute nothing but the name to our 
knowledge of it. The writer refers to a popular legend which 
had formed the basis of Apostolic teaching, as in earlier times 
the prophets and psalmists had made use of similar mythological 
ideas to enforce the lessons which they had to teach. But the 
process of spiritualization is complete. The writer finds in the 
false teaching which is growing apace the fulfilment of the popular 
expectation of the coming of the great antagonist who is to lead 
the last and final opposition of the powers of the world to the 


ΤΠ 1} NOTES ON I JOHN 79 


kingdom of the Christ. Whether this opposition is soon to 
culminate in the work of a single opponent he leaves uncertain. 
It is not a matter which interests him. The mystery of law- 
lessness is already working in those who are inspired by the 
spirits who do not confess Jesus Christ come in flesh. In this 
the “word” Antichrist cometh is fulfilled. The writer’s business} 
is with the reality to which the legend points; with the legend] 
itself he has but little to do. 

It is unnecessary here to trace the further developments of 
the Antichrist legend in later Jewish and Christian expectation. 
They show a more or less definite, but continually shifting, 
popular tradition which took its start in the old myth of the 
Sea-monster overcome, but only confined and not destroyed, by 
the power of God, which should once more break its bonds, 
and make a last attack on the powers of light before the final 
establishment of the Messianic kingdom. 


B. ii. 28-iv. 6. 

Second presentation of the two theses, ethical and Christo- 
logical, the two being discussed separately, but with express 
reference to their connection. 

I. ii. 28-iii. 24. 

The doing of righteousness, especially genuine brotherly 
love, the true sign of the Birth from God. Corresponding 
exhortation. 

I. 11. 28-iii. 6. 

The thesis, and the exhortation to recognize this truth, 
shown by the obligation, involved in the gift of Divine kinship 
and the hope of its completion, of self-purification. The wide 
prevalence of antinomianism. The incompatibility of knowledge 
of God and yielding to sin. 

(a) 11. 28-111. 3. 

(2) 111. 4-6. 

li. 28-iii. 3. 

The gift of Divine kinship carries with it the obligation to 
self-purification. 

1. This verse is closely connected with the preceding. It is 
a meditation on the last words of that verse, ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. 
The writer is trying to restore the waning enthusiasm of his 
readers, and to recall them to their first love. He therefore 
reminds them of their high privilege and position. God has 
given them proof of His love. He has bestowed on them 
the rank and title of His children, sharers in His nature. And 
it is no mere title. It corresponds to real facts, if they will 
but realize them, and respond to them. And these facts are 
the cause of the hostile attitude of the world. Those who do 


80 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [III. 1. 


not know God have no sympathy with those who share His 
nature. 

An interesting parallel to this passage is found in Pirge 
Aboth, iii. 22 (ed. Taylor, 1897), ‘Beloved are Israel that they 
are called children of God ; greater love (was it that it) was made 
known to them that they are called children of God, as it is 
said, Ye are the children of the Lord your God” (Dt. xiv. 1). 
We may also compare and contrast (cf. Windisch, ad Joc.) 
Philo, de confusione ling. 146f. (Cohn, 11. p. 257) καὶ yap εἰ μήπω 
ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖδες νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τῆς ἀειδοῦς εἰκόνος 
αὐτοῦ, λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου. ¥ The emphasis on the direct relation 
of Christians to God is characteristic of the Epistle, though the 
writer conceives of this relationship as realized in and through 
Christ. 

ἴδετε ποταπήν] Cf. Gal. vi. τι, ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν 
ἔγραψα: and for the combination with ποταπός, Mk. xiii. 1, ide 
ποταποὶ λίθοι. In the N.T. ποταπός generally suggests surprise, 
and very often something of an admirable character (gualem, 
Watt. verss.).. “Cf. Mt. vill. 275; Lk. 1. 20.) vii. 30. age 
(ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἁγίαις ἀναστροφαῖς;). The Latt. 
verss. never use cujas, ποταπός having lost its reference to 
place. 

ἀγάπην] Love, not token of love. ‘The Divine love is, as 
it were, infused into them, so that it is their own, and becomes in 
them the source of a divine life.” 

δέδωκεν) is better supported than the aorist, and is intrinsi- 
cally superior. The results of what they have received are 
permanent and abiding. Nowhere else in N.T. does ἀγάπην 
δίδοναι occur. 

6 πατήρ] suggested by the following τέκνα θεοῦ. Cf. Rev. xxi. 7. 

ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν] Another instance of the definitive 
ἵνα. It is difficult to find any “full telic” force here. God did 
not give His love to men in order that they might be called 
sons. The greatness of His love to them was manifested in 
this, that He allowed Himself to be called their Father. Cf. 
ver. 11, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία, . . . ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν. According to 
the general usage of this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel, τέκνα 
θεοῦ emphasizes the community of nature as distinguished from 
the dignity of heirship. The “being called” includes the 
“being,” but it is not synonymous with it. It lays special 
stress on the dignity of the Christian title and position. 

καὶ ἐσμέν] An awkward parenthesis, which scribes naturally 
dropped, as in the Receptus, or adapted to the sentence, as 
in the Latin Versions, e¢ s¢mus. But it is in the author’s style. 
Cf. the true text of Jn. i. 15, κέκραγεν λέγων---οὗτος ἦν ὁ εἰπών--- 
‘O ὀπίσω pov ἐρχόμενος, and also Apoc.i.6; 2 Jn. 2. And it 


II. 1, 2.] NOTES ON I JOHN 81 


also adds force to the sentence. ‘It is no mere empty title. 
It is a realized fact, though some are in danger of forgetting it.” 
Justin seems to have known this verse; Déad. c. Try. 123 (353 B), 
οὕτως Kal ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἡμᾶς εἰς θεὸν Χριστοῦ, ---καὶ 
θεοῦ τέκνα ἀληθινὰ καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν, οἱ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
φυλάσσοντες. 
διὰ τοῦτο] Because they knew not God. As usual, the refer- 

ence of τοῦτο is to what follows. They do not recognize us, 
because they did not know God. Those who failed to know 
God (οὐκ ἔγνω) in creation, in history, in the revelation made by 
Jesus Christ, naturally fail to know those who are of like 
nature. 

αγαπην post πατηρ 5 (Ψ). 

δεδωκεν § BC K L Pal. longe plu. Thphyl. Oec.] εδωκεν A 1, 13. 27 

escr qscr, 

nuw] υμιν Β K* 22, 31*. 80. 100: post tarnp H**? (33). 

Tekva θεου KAnOwpev] κληθητε Texva OU [2 δ882 (Ὁ), 

καὶ ἐσμεν καὶ ect £718 (61) [4 5511. 205. 106. 261 (96) : om. K Lal. plu. 

arm2°h, 

μας] υμας δῖ K L P al.* arm-codd. Thphyl. Oec. 

eyrw] εγνωκατε P 192: eyvwre 100 al. pauc. 

avrov]+o κοσμος 7. 173 (252), 


2. The thought of τέκνα θεοῦ is expanded in connection with 
the thought of the Parousia. Here and now they have attained 
to the position of ‘children of God.” Their present dignity 
is as nothing compared with the glory which shall be revealed. 
The exact conditions of their future state have not yet been 
made clear. What has already become matter of common 
knowledge is that, the more fully Christ is revealed, the closer 
will be their likeness to Him. What they have seen of Christ 
incarnate has raised them to the position of God’s children. 
If He is fully made manifest, those who see Him as He is “ will 
be consummated in the divine likeness to which it was the 
divine purpose that they should attain” (Westcott). Cf. Gn. i. 
26. Allis not yet made manifest, but they have so learned the 
Christ that they know that it is “*God’s task to make the 
heavenly period Perfect the earthen.” 

ἀγαπητοί] Cf. iii. 21, iv. 11, and contrast ii. 7, iv. 1, 7. The 
word is used here, not to introduce a new section, but to call 
attention to a further meditation on what has preceded. The 
writer uses the term which reminds his readers of their and 
his common share in the gift which God has given. 

viv τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσμέν] Cf. καὶ ἐσμέν of the preceding verse 
What they have at present justifies their full confidence for th 
future, which will bring the complete unfolding of that whic 
is even now present, though its manifestation is hindered by 
the circumstances in which they are placed. 


6 


82 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [ΠῚ]. 2. 


οὔπω ἐφανερώθη] For οὔπω with the aorist, where the writer 
is not looking back on a time separated by an interval from 
that of writing or speaking, cf. Mk. xi. 2 (οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἐκάθισεν) ; 
1 Co. viii. 2 (εἴ τις δοκεῖ. . . οὔπω ἔγνω) ; He. xii. 4 (οὔπω μέχρις 
αἵματος ἀντικατέστητε) ; Apoc. xvil. 10 (6 ἄλλος οὔπω ἦλθεν), 12 
(βασίλειαν οὔπω ἔλαβον). The statement denies that there has 
ever yet been a moment at which it could be said ἐφανερώθη, 
where the aorist would be either timeless, or expressive of what 
has just happened. There is no necessary reference to any 
occasion ‘on which the revelation might have been expected,” 
such as the manifestation of the Risen Lord (Westcott). 

οἴδαμεν] We know enough to justify confidence even if no 
complete revelation has as yet been made. Great as are our 
privileges now, how far greater then! Nothing short of being 
like God in Christ. Contrast γινώσκομεν (ii. 3, 18, iii. 24, etc.) : 
here no frogress in knowledge is suggested: we are aware of 
the future likeness. 

ἐὰν φανερωθῇ] May mean either (1) ¢f zt shall be revealed, i.e. 
our future condition (τί ἐσόμεθα), or (2) “if He shall be revealed,” 
z.e. Christ. The first is the more natural interpretation so far 
as grammar is concerned. It connects the words naturally with 
the preceding οὔπω ἐφανερώθη. And it gives an adequate 
meaning to the words. “If our future glory is revealed, it will 
be found to be not less than likeness to God, the open vision 
of whose glory shall transform us.” In favour of (2) is the use 
of φανερωθῇ of Christ in ver. 28 of the preceding chapter, and 
the general sense of the passage. Throughout the passage the 
writers thoughts are turned to the revelation of Christ in His 
glory at His Parousia.” If He be manifested in His true glory, 
the vision will change us to His likeness. Cf. 2 Co. iii. 18, τὴν 
δόξαν Κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ 
δόξης εἰς δόξαν : Col. iii. 4, ὁτὰν ὃ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ . . . τότε καὶ 
ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ. And if the use of 
φανεροῦσθαι in ii. 28 partly suggests this interpretation, in spite 
of the intervening οὔπω ἐφανερώθη, where the τί ἐσόμεθα deter- 
mines the meaning of the verb, it must also be remembered 
that the language of soliloquy and meditation has to some 
extent its own rules. To one pondering over the future glory 
of the Son of God, in the light of the present revelation of the 
Risen Lord, which suggests so much more than it actually 
reveals, the words ἐὰν φανερωθῇ could probably have but one 
meaning. To us it would have been clearer if the subject had 
been definitely expressed. It does not follow that the same is 
true of the writer, or of those for whose sakes he is giving written 
form to his meditations. Very possibly they had often heard 
him meditate on the theme ἐὰν φανερωθῇ. He uses the word 


ELE 2, 8.] NOTES ON I JOHN 83 


φανεροῦσθαι eighteen times, and in twelve Christ is the subject, 
though most of them refer to His manifestation in the flesh. 

ὅμοιοι] Contrast Ph. 11. 6, τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Oe@. And for the 
thought, cf. Plato, Zheaetetus, 176 B, φυγὴ δὲ ὁμοίωσις τῷ θεῷ κατὰ 
τὸ δυνατόν : Greg. Thaum. Paneg. in Origenem, Cc. 12, τό ye πάντων 
τέλος οὐχ ἕτερόν TL οἶμαι ἢ καθαρῷ τῷ νῷ ἐξομοιωθέντα προσελθεῖν 
τῷ θεῷ καὶ μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ:ἑ Apoc. xxii. 4, καὶ ὄψονται τὸ πρόσωπον 
αὐτοῦ. Similes, guia beatt, says Bede. 

ὅτι] “ Because we shall see Him as He is.” What men saw 
of Jesus of Nazareth, when He manifested His glory under the 
limitations of human life, raised them to the position of τέκνα 
θεοῦ, in the case of all who received Him (Jn. i. 13). How 
much greater transforming power shall there be in the vision of 
Him as He is, no longer veiled by the conditions of earthly life ! 

It is possible to take ὅτι «.7.A. as giving the proof of the 
knowledge (οἴδαμεν). We know that we shall be like Him, for 
we know that we shall see Him; and only the pure in heart 
shall see God. He is visible only to those who share His 
nature. Like is perceived by like alone. But. if the writer had 
meant this he surely would have expressed himself differently. 
He often leaves not a little for his readers to supply. But he 
demands from them the use of spiritual insight rather than of 
mental acuteness. Weiss’ explanation is too ingenious for its 
context. 


Texva] post θεου P 31. 

re] ore 277 (54) K (415). 

οιδαμεν]- δὲ KL al. pler. cat. syrs* cap. sah? aeth, Or. Dam. 
Thphy]. 

ore (Ὁ 2°)] pr. καὶ 71 8977. 205.106. 201 (96): καὶ 72158 (398), 

οψομεθα] οψωμεθα 31 41.559: : widemus, boh-ed. 


8. The possession of such a hope is the strongest incentive 
to absolute purity. The hope is not really grasped except by 
those whose striving towards this goal is eager and constant. 
The hope is not stated to be the necessary condition of the 
purity, but the purity is the necessary result of the hope. It is 
not denied that other causes may produce a similar result. But 
where such a hope really exists the striving after purity must 
follow. ‘The Christian hope is incompatible with moral in- 
difference. No one, not even the “Gnostic,” is raised by it 
above the moral obligations. And the purity aimed at is 
absolute. The standard is nothing less than the perfected 
human life of the glorified Christ. 

πᾶς] The use of πᾶς in this Epistle and in the Gospel is 
instructive. It generally sets aside the claims of some party 
or other who claimed special privileges or exemptions for them- 
selves. 


84 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [III. 8, 4. 


ὃ ἔχων . . - ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ] The form of expression emphasizes the 
thought of hope possessed and enjoyed as a sure possession 
(ἔχειν ἐλπίδα being stronger than the simple verb), and which 
rests on the Christ, and is therefore surely and securely grounded. 
Contrast Ac. xxiv. 15, ἐλπίδα ἔχων εἰς τὸν θεόν, reaching as far as 
(Westcott). Cf. x Ti. ivi to, v.'5. See, Introductions ap. viv; 
also 1 Ti. vi. 17; 1 P. i. 13, 21. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ must, of course, refer 
to Christ. 

ἁγνίζει] Cf. Ex. xix. το ῖ. ; Nu. viii. 21 ; Jos. iii. 5; 1 Es. vii. 
10, and also Jn. xi. 55. Those who appeared before God at 
the Jewish feasts were required first to purify themselves from 
all Levitical and ceremonial uncleanness. The hope of appear- 
ing before the presence of God, and of seeing Christ as He is, 
necessarily inspires its possessors with the desire of putting 
away every defilement which clouds the vision of God, even as 
the human nature of the Christ, made perfect through the 
discipline and suffering of earthly life, has even now been ex- 
alted to the unveiled presence of the Father. 

καθώς] He has attained, and those who hope to attain like- 
wise will naturally spare no effort to follow the same path. But 
καθώς suggests a pattern, rather than introduces a motive. 

ἐκεῖνος] For the change of pronoun, cf. Jn. v. 39, and 
perhaps xix. 35. Throughout the Epistle ἐκεῖνος used absol- 
utely refers to Christ. Cf. ii. 6 (note). 

ἁγνός] For the difference between ἅγνός and καθαρός, see 
Westcott’s note. Καθαρός seems to state the objective fact, 
ἁγνός emphasizes the subjective feeling. The Vulg. commonly 
has castus for é&yvds, but here has sanctus. 

τὴν ελπιδα] fidem, sah4, 
ταυτην] om, £4 10. 367 (sos), 
ἐπ᾿ auTw] em auTov 2. 25. 30. 


post eavrov boh-sah. (27 60) : ev avrw 31. 
eauTov] avrov 31* os, 


4. πᾶς] Cf. ver. 3 (note). In contrast with those who seek 
to cleanse themselves from all defilement, are set those who 
continue to do the sin which defiles and separates from God. 
There is no special class of 2//wminati, superior to the obligation 
to keep the moral law. The test of progress is obedience. 
Those who fail to do the will of God, to work out the best of 
which their nature is capable, are breaking the law of God, 
which is the law of their being. All sin is law-breaking; all 
falling short of the highest possible is disobedience to God’s law 
for men, the law of self-realization after the pattern of the Christ. 
He that fails to do righteousness breaks the law. 

τὴν ἀνομίαν] ἀνομία here is, of course, not the antinomianism 
of the “Gnostic.” The condemnation of that would have 


III. 4, 5.] NOTES ON I JOHN 85 


required the converse of the statement here made, “ All ἀνομία 
is sin.” But the writer is undoubtedly thinking of the claim 
made by the superior ‘‘ Gnostic,” that he is at liberty to follow 
the leading of his own desires, without being under any obliga- 
tion to the moral law, which is only binding on the ignorant and 
the inferior. The sins of which the writer is thinking are 
failures to fulfil the law of love, rather than grosser sins of 
the flesh, which are hardly, perhaps never, referred to in this 
Epistle. But whatever form they take, sinful acts are not 
matters of indifference. In the case of all men, even the most 
intelligent, they are transgressions of a valid law. He who 
stoops to them shows himself thereby to be no true τέκνον θεοῦ. 

καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία κ-τ.λ.] The καί adds a clause which carries the 
thought a step further. Not only is “doing sin” a violation 
of law, but sin in its very nature is a transgression of the law of 
God. It is the self-assertion of the finite against the eternal 
will of Him who has the right to claim absolute obedience. 


ΤΉν 1°] om. 31. 
ἢ 2°] pr. καὶ N*: (Ὁ) om, Z* 300 (83), 
ἐστιν] -ἰ δὲ H &* (58). 


5. καὶ οἴδατε κ-τ.λ.}] Not only does he who commits sin 
break a Divine law, but he stultifies the whole purpose of the 
Incarnation. Christ was manifested to men in His earthly life 
in order to take away sin, to destroy and remove it. And 
being sinless Himself, it was in His power to do so. To 
these two great incentives to self-cleansing, the purpose of 
the Incarnation, and the power of the Incarnate Christ, the 
writer can appeal as to part of the normal Christian conscious- 
ness, whether he includes himself (οἴδαμεν) or speaks only of 
his readers (οἴδατε). 

ἐκεῖνος] Cf. ver. 3. The writer apparently sees no difficulty in 
using ἐκεῖνος and αὐτός in the same verse with reference to the 
same subject: though, of course, the case where ἐκεῖνος stands 
first is not strictly parallel to those in which it follows the use of 
avrds, as in ver. 3. 

ἐφανερώθη] The word is used more frequently, as here, by 
the writer with reference to Christ’s first coming, or manifesta- 
tion, mithe flesh. Cf. r Ti, πὶ τό τὰ P. 1 20: 

ἄρῃ] Take away, ze. destroy. The Hebrew nw is used in 
both senses of faking away and dearing. But it is differently 
translated into Greek in the two cases. Atpew expresses the 
former, φέρειν the latter. Cf. Is. lili. 11, τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν 
QUTOS ανοισει. 

τὰς ἁμαρτίας] whether used absolutely, or with the addition 
of ἡμῶν, denotes the many acts in which the sin of humanity is 


86 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [III. 5, 6. 


expressed. The concrete expression is more forcible than the 
absolute (τὴν ἁμαρτίαν). 

ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν] cf. Jn. vii. 18, ἀδικία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ 
ἔστιν. The statement is made of the whole human life of the 
Christ (ἔστιν), and is not confined to the earthly part of it. In 
virtue of His sinlessness He can accomplish the purpose of the 
Incarnation ; and the thought also suggests the means by which 
it can’ be accomplished, a thought which is fuither developed in 
the next verse. Cf. Augustine, “In quo non est peccatum ipse 
uenit auferre peccatum. Nam si esset in illo peccatum, auferen- 
dum est illi, non ipse auferret.” 


odare ABCKL al. pler. vg. boh-codd. syr. aeth. Tert. Aug.] 
οἰδαμεν ἐξ 40. 98 tol. sah. arm. boh-ed. Fulg. 

Tas auaprias ABP 5. 13. 27.66**. 81 am. fu. demid. harl. tol. cop. 
syr. aeth. Tert. Aug. Fulg.J+quov 8 CKL al. pler. cat. vg. sah. syr. 
Ath. Thphyl. Oec. 

εν avTw] post εστιν & sah. cop. aeth. 


6. In so far as union with the Sinless is realized, sin ceases 
‘to be. The doing of sin shows that the Christ has never been 
fully seen or known. The statements are made absolutely, 
after the writer’s wont. ‘They must, of course, be interpreted in 
the light of i. 8 ff., where the writer makes it clear that he does 
not mean that those who have realized their union with 
Christ have actually attained as yet to a state of complete sin- 
lessness. Where sin is, the vision of the Christ has not yet been 
made perfect. There is nothing to show that the writer is de- 
scribing the gezera/ character of the Christian, which remains 
unchanged by separate sinful acts, inasmuch as they are foreign 
to it and do not affect it as a whole. The statement is made 
absolutely without reference to the modifications necessary 
when it is applied to the individual case. 

ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν] As contrasted with εἶναι, μένειν perhaps 
suggests in this context the necessity of human effort. 

οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει] Augustine has supplied the necessary πεν: 
fication, “In quantum in ipso manet, in tantum non peccat,” 
sentence which Bede has incorporated in his Comm gene 
(cf. Westcott’s note). 

ἑώρακεν . . ἔγνωκεν͵] The vision and the knowledge have 
their abiding results. ὁρᾶν is used by the writer of spiritual 
vision. It cannot be restricted here (as by Weiss) to those who 
had actually seen the Lord in the flesh, ἔγνωκεν being added to 
meet the case of later disciples. Cf. Bede, ‘‘ Visionem dicit et 
cognitionem fidei, qua iusti etiam in hac uita deum uidere 
delectantur, donec ad ipsam speciem apertae visionis eius in 
futuro preueniant, de qua supra dicitur, Quoniam uidebimus 
eum sicuti est,” a passage which is also based on Augustine’s 


ΠῚ. 6, 7. NOTES ON I JOHN 87 


comment, “est illuminatio per fidem, est illuminatio per speciem.” 
If the two words are to be distinguished here, ὁρᾶν lays stress 
on the object, which appears and is grasped by the mental vision, 
γινώσκειν on the subsequent subjective apprehension of what is 
grasped in the vision, or it is unfolded gradually in experience. 
mas 2°] pr. kat 38. 67 (mg.). 95. 96**. 97 (mg.) δ vg. syr. aeth. arm. 
Or. Thphyl. Aug. (senel): pr. διο 7°78 (56), 
eyvwxev] ey vA 365. 472 (214) Je 208. 116 (307) K 8859 (479). 

2. iii. 7-18. Elucidation of the thesis (ethical), and earnest 
warning against those who would lead them astray. 

(a) 7-10. Further meditation on the Divine Birth. The 
opposite statement. He that sinneth is of the Devil. 

(ὁ) 10-17. Clearer definition of sin as failure to love the 
brethren, and of its opposite, love. 

7. The views of the false teachers were plausible, and there 
was imminent danger of some of the faithful being seduced. 
But the facts were clear. He, and he only, who shows the 
fruits of righteousness in what he does, is righteous. Righteous- 
ness is always known by its fruits. There are no heights of 
knowledge, or superior kinds of nature, for which action is a 
matter of indifference. 

texvia] If this is the true reading, the appeal is again made 
to their common (spiritual) nature. There is some authority for 
the reading παιδία, which would be equally suitable. The danger 
would have been less imminent, if they had used their own powers, 
and shown themselves less dependent on the moral guidance of 
others. 

μηδεὶς πλανάτω] Cf. ii. 26. They must yield to the seduc- 
tions of no one, however prominent his position or plausible 
his arguments. It is, of course, possible that the writer is 
thinking of some particular opponent. 

6 ποιῶν] Cf. 1. 6, ili. 4, etc. If the character is true, the 
whole life will be an expression of it, even as the whole of 
Christ’s life was a continuous expression of the character and 
person in whom God could be well pleased. 

ἐκεῖνος) Cf. vv. 3, 4 (notes). Righteousness was fully realized 
in Him who set the Christian standard. No lower ideal would 
prove a sufficient incentive to holiness, ze. the highest self- 
realization of which the nature of man is capable, who was 
created in order to grow into the likeness of God. 

τεκνια & BK Lal. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec. m vg. syr. Tert. Aug.] παιδια 
ACP 5. 13. 27. 29 arm. (uid.) cop. syrP™S Leif.: +mov 15. 26. 36. 68 
cat. sah. syrS*® aeth. 
nodes] μη τις A. 
ποιων δικαιοσυνὴν (Ὁ ? cf. v. ay p. 1856)] δικαιος wy A ὃ88 (Ψ). 
dixacos (Ὁ 2°)] om. H 8# (33 
THY 2°] om. &*. 


88 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [III. 8, 


8. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν] The contrast to 74. He whose 
whole course of action is the expression of “sin,” belongs to the 
Devil, from whom the life which animates him is derived, as the 
higher life which issues in righteousness proclaims its possessor 
a τέκνον θεοῦ. 

ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν] Cf. Bede, “Non carnis originem 
ducendo ex diabolo sicut Manichaeus impurissime de cunctis 
credit hominibus: sed imitationem uel suggestionem peccandi 
sumendo ab illo, quomodo et nos filii Abrahae sumus facti, 
imitando fidem Abrahae,” a suggestive note, though it ignores 
the nearer illustrations of the context. 

ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς] The meaning of dw ἀρχῆς has been variously 
interpreted. It has generally been understood either of (1) the 
beginning of “sinning,” ze. the Fall of Adam, or events which 
preceded the first sin of man; or (2) the beginning of the exist- 
ence of the Devil. His first act was one of sin. The uncertainty 
of both these interpretations has led Rothe and others to give 
the phrase a logical rather than a temporal meaning. “Satan 
sins, the author would say, ‘par principe,” for the sake of 
sinning. Other sinners sin for the sake of another. In contrast 
to him all human sin is derived.” Whether the actual phrase 
can bear such an interpretation or not, the point of view of the 
readers has surely been overlooked. The writer must have 
intended a meaning which the words could suggest to them. 
The phrase must therefore be interpreted in accordance with 
Jn. vill. 44, 1. 1; Gn. i. 1, etc. The attempt to assign a definite 
date, so to speak, is a mistake. ‘‘The earliest times spoken of 
in Genesis” would perhaps be the nearest popular paraphrase. 
“From the first” would give its meaning with fair accuracy. It 
denotes the earliest events which have any bearing on the point 
at issue. From the very first, long before the first actual sin 
of any man, ‘“‘the devil sinneth,” and the course begun from the 
first has been continued ever since. All human sin, therefore, 
has its origin in what is external to the man who sins. It comes 
from an external source. It is not self-originated or part of 
man’s nature. As Westcott has said elsewhere, ‘‘There is no 
view of human nature so inexpressibly sad as that which leaves 
out the Fall.” As also F. D. Maurice has said, “ There has 
been no period of the existence of human beings in which they 
have not been liable to the assaults of this Tempter.” 

There is nothing in the passage to suggest that the writer 
held a “dualistic” view of the origin of evil, considering the 
Devil “an originally evil being”; but it is manifest that he 
believed in a personal Tempter. Cf. Jn. viii. 44. 

εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη x.7.A.] All such action is in direct opposi- 
tion to the purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God, who 





III. 8, 9.] NOTES ON I JOHN 89 


was manifested in the flesh in order to destroy the works of the 
Devil, 2.6. the sins which he has introduced into the lives of men. 

λύσῃ] “destroy.” The word generally includes the sugges- 
tion of destroying, undoing or dissolving, that which forms the 
bond of cohesion. Cf. Jn. ii. τὸ, v. 18, vii. 23 (the Lord 
‘*dissolved ” the Jewish sabbatical tradition by applying to the 
question the higher principle of the duty of restoring man to his 
true self). Windisch aptly quotes the λογίον of the Egyptian 
Gospel, ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰ ἔργα τῆς θηλείας. 


0 15] δὲ A 25. 68 ks“ tol. boh-ed. arm. aeth. Leif. 
Avon] Avcei B 100: λυθη P. 


9. He who is begotten of God must be in character like God 
who begat him. Sin, which is of the Devil, finds no place in 
him. 

ὃ γεγεννημένος] Compare and contrast Jn. 1. 13, ἐκ θεοῦ 
ἐγεννήθησαν. Here the writer emphasizes not only the initial 
act, or the single act, but its permanent results. 

ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ] Anarthrous and therefore qualitative. He 
does not do that which is sinful in character. But the absence 
of the article should not be pressed. 

ὅτι σπέρμα] The seed which produces the new life in him 
(cf. Jn. i. 13), as a permanent and abiding factor.1 The inter- 
pretation which equates σπέρμα with the Word of God (“semen 
dei, id est uerbum dei,” Bede, from Augustine, who adds, “ unde 
dicit Apostolus, Per Euangelium ego uos genui, 1 Co. iv. 15) 
receives some support from 1 P. i. 23; Ja. i. 18, but is hardly 
in accordance with the Johannine teaching, in which the Spirit 
is the author of the new birth (cf. Jn. iii.). Wohlenberg in an 
interesting paper has pleaded for the interpretation which 
identifies σπέρμα θεοῦ with God’s children collectively (cf. Jn. 
Vili. 33, σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ). It has the advantage of referring αὐτοῦ 
and ἐν αὐτῷ to the same person (God’s children abide in Him), 
but it makes the following clause, ov δύναται. . . γεγέννηται, very 
difficult both in grammar and sense. As Law has pointed out, 
the last clause must then have run (“and they cannot sin, because 
they abide in Him”). Still less can be said for Karl’s inter- 
pretation 2° the words as referring to Christ. Cf., however, 
Justin, Afo/. 1. 32, where we perhaps have an echo of this.? 

οὗ δύναται x.7.A.] The fact that he has been begotten of God 
excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of 
his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur, in so 
far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. Cf. 

1Cf. Philo, De Zérze¢. 30 (Cohn, ii. p. 176), τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρματα. 

2 οἱ πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ ἄνθρωποι, ἐν οἷς οἰκεῖ τὸ παρὰ TOD θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὁ 


λόγος. 


90 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [111. 9, 10. 


Jn. viii. 33, 39. Every τέκνον must reproduce the works of his 
father. In so far as any man is a τέκνον θεοῦ he “cannot” do 
the works of the Devil. The writer speaks, however, here as 
elsewhere, in the absolute language of the prophet rather than 
with the circumspection of the casuist. On the N.T. doctrine 
of Birth from God, see Windisch, p. 118. 


was] pr. dio αγαπητοι 7) 78 (56), 

yevevy nuevos] yeyevnuevos K 99. 100. 177* js o8* al. pauc. 
rou (? 10} om. 278 (33) 15 106 (179), 

αμαρτιαν ov mover] zon peccat Sah. boh. 

σπερμα] pr. το 79 ὅδ᾽ (216) O* (154). 

αντου] dez Saha: om. /* 382 (231). 

apapravew] awapriay ποιήσαι 75 158 (305). 

ort] οστις 75 382 (233). 


10. ἐν τούτῳ] This may possibly refer to what has preceded, the 
not-doing or the doing of sin, which are the distinguishing 
characteristics of the classes into which the writer divides man- 
kind. But it is more probable, and more in accordance with the 
writer’s usual custom, that the reference is to what follows, the 
achievement of, or the failure to achieve, righteousness and love 
(cf. ii. 3). For the construction, cf. the note on i. 4. 

φανερά] The writer is striving to give his readers a dis- 
tinguishing test which can be easily applied. It is, of course, to 
the judgment of men, not the judgment of God, that the two 
clues become manifest. 

τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου] cf. Acts xiii. το, υἱὲ διαβόλου, and Jn. viii. 
The teaching of this section of the Epistle can hardly be under- 
stood without reference to the 8th chapter of the Gospel, with 
which it is intimately connected. 

πᾶς] There are no exceptions on the ground of superior 
knowledge or “‘ pneumatic” nature; cf. notes on wv. 3, 4. 

καὶ 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν] The doing of righteousness might be too 
vague and general a test. The writer therefore narrows it down 
to one special form of righteousness which is in fact the basis 
of the whole, and in the exercise of which the false teachers 
had apparently shown themselves particularly lacking. Cf. Ro. 
Xlii. 9, εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν TH 
ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. 

τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ] The writer is obviously thinking of members 
of the Christian Society, not thereby excluding the wider duty 
on which the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables insist. 
The object οἵ the Epistle is to suggest practical tests. They 
must be practical and such as are easily applied. No statement 
is made to the effect that he who confines his love to his 
Christian brethren has completely fulfilled the law of Christ. 
The writer has a special object in what he says, and he writes in 


III. 10, 11] NOTES ON I JOHN ΟἹ 


view of the failure in this respect of showing love to fellow- 
Christians, which was conspicuous in the case of the false 
teachers, in spite of their claims to intellectual and spiritual 
superiority. There is nothing inconsistent with the teaching of 
the Christ in laying special stress on the first stage in obeying it. 
The experience of a lifetime, and especially of his later years, 
would seem to have taught the writer the necessity of charity 
beginning at home. 
εν TouTw] εκ τουτου [4 2-Ff (83), 
mas] pr. και C* “id aeth. 
ποιων δικαιοσυνην SABCKL Pal. omnvid cat. harl. tol. arm. cop. 
syr. aeth. Did. Thphyl. Oec.] wv δίκαιος m vg. (am. fu. demid.) sah. syr. 
Or. Cyp. Leif. Aug. : δικαιος wy H8® (Ψ)ὴ. An interesting ‘* Western” 
variant, which can hardly claim to be original. The context requires the 
practical test of ‘‘ doing.” 
δικαιοσυνην & BL al. plu. Dam.] pr. τὴν. AC K Ph al. fere.?? Dam. 
0 2°] om. /# 38 (231), 
αὐτου]- οὐκ ayaa τον θν [47 (505), 


11. The original message of the Gospel, nay, the whole 
history of God’s revelation of Himself to men from the earliest 
times, is summed up in the command to exercise mutual love. 
He therefore who does not love his brother shows thereby that 
he cannot be ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. 

αὕτη. .. ἵνα] The αὕτη, which refers to what follows, 
excludes the possibility of any “telic” force being retained by 
iva here; cf. Jn. xvii. 3, and the close parallels in Jn. xiii. 34, 
RUE ME PMs 23, 1V. 210. EO.) SG aISO 1, {Πὺὔὦνρ 2; 2 fin. δ; 
6; cf. note on 1. 9. The declarative, or definitive, use of ἵνα 
to introduce the contents of a command, or the like, is fully 
established for S. John. 

ἀγγελία] The message of the Gospel, of which the law of love 
is the basis. The reading ἐπαγγελία does not suit the context, 
and it is obviously due to the careless substitution of a commoner 
word. Except in this passage, ἀγγελία is found only once in the 
N.T. (1 Jn. i. 5). On the other hand, ἐπαγγελία occurs 51 times, 
but only once in the Johannine writings (1 Jn. 11. 25). 

ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς] The law of love was an essential part 
of the earliest presentation of the Gospel. It formed part of the 
earliest teaching which the readers had received. The contents, 
however, of ver. 12 suggest that in the words am ἀρχῆς the 
writers thought goes back to still earlier times. The earliest 
stories of the beginnings of the race bear witness to the fatal 
consequences of disobedience to the law of love. 


αγγελια ABKL al. plu. cat. Thphyl. Oeco™ vg. Aug.] επαγγελια 
NCP 27. 29. 40. 66**. 69. 99 as ns‘ al. mu. harl. syr. Sahw> cop. arm. 
aeth. Did. Cyr. Oect** Leif. : werbum sah4, 

wa αγαπωμεν] ut diligatts boh-ed. arm"*: wa ayarare 75.113 (235), 


Ο2 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [III. 12. 


12. The story of Cain is the typical example of the “want” 
of brotherly love. The form of the reference here is conditioned 
by what the writer has to say about the hatred which Christians 
must expect from the world. Men’s deeds are the natural 
outcome of their charcater and inclinations. Evil deeds are the 
expression of a character which takes pleasure in what is evil. 
Righteousness must always provoke the hostile feeling of those 
whose delight is in evil. And feelings must sooner or later 
express themselves in action. 

οὐ καθώς] Cf. 2 Co. viii. 5, καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν ἀλλὰ ἑαυτοὺς 
ἔδωκαν : Jn. Xiv. 27, οὐ καθὼς ὃ κόσμος δίδωσιν, and especially Jn. 
vi. 58, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὃ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον 
ot πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον, where the construction is irregular, as 
here. The comparison is incomplete in form. It may be 
paraphrased “the feelings of Christians for each other must not 
be like, rather they must be the exact opposite of, those of Cain, 
whose hatred of righteousness led him to the violent murder of 
his brother.” Schlatter aptly quotes in illustration (p. 149), 
barns san pp dand ppp δὲ. ΠΣ apya, Pes. Kah. τό. 26a, 


ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ fy] Every man must draw his life and power 
from one source or the other. His deeds show to whom he 
belongs and has attached himself. The writer never denies the 
individual freedom of choice. He only traces things back to 
what he believes to be their ultimate spiritual sources. 

ἔσφαξεν] The verb always includes the idea of violence. In 
the Nea. σφάζειν is found only here and in the Apocalypse. | 
Cf. Apoc. vi. 4, ἵνα ἀλλήλους σφάξουσιν: 9, τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐσφαγ- 
μένων. διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ : XVili. 24, πάντων τῶν ἐσφαγμένων ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς. It is also used of the Lamb, and of the “ head " of the 
beast (xiii. 3). In the LXX its most frequent use is sacrificial 
(ef. Gn, xxi. To, of Isaac; Ex: χχῖσ στ; Τν} 1 δ. ΝῚ xine 
etc.) ; but see also Jg. xii. 6 (A), σφάζουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς διαβάσεις 
Tov Ἰορδάνου: 1 K. xv. 33, ἔσφαξε Σαμουὴλ τὸν ᾿Αγὰγ ἐνώπιον 
Κυρίου: 1 Μᾶς. 1. 2, καὶ ἔσφαξε βασιλεῖς, etc. 

χάριν τίνος] The violent deed was only the last expression of 
that antipathy which righteousness always calls out in those 
who make evil the guiding principle of their life. This view, that 
the cause of the murder of Abel is to be found in the character 
of Cain as manifested in his actions, is hardly in accord with the 
narrative of Genesis (iv. 8 ff.), but it is quite in keeping with 
the suggestions read into that narrative by the adherents of 
the allegorical method of exegesis. We may compare Philo’s 
treatment of the subject, who finds indications of Cain’s φιλαυτία 
in the fact that he only offered his sacrifice “after several days,” 
and not at once, with the readiness which should distinguish the 


III. 12-14.] NOTES ON I JOHN 93 


service of God; and that he offered of the fruits, not of the first- 
fruits. Cf. also He. xi. 4, where the stress is laid on the character 
of the sacrifices offered (πλείονα θυσίαν), rather than on the 
general character of all the actions of the two men. 


του (ὃ 1°) om. 75 397" (96) | τον] pr. Ada/, sah4, 
om. kat. . . αὐτον aeth. 

τινος xapw J*® (236), 

ov] pr. e¢ sah4, 

αδελῴου αὐτου] aBed 753 363 (233). 

δικαια] dora arm, 


13-16. The ground of the world’s hatred of those who love, 
and the glory of love, which gives life, in Christ. 

13-15. Those who can interpret aright the true meaning of © 
the story of Cain and Abel will feel no surprise at the attitude 
of the world towards Christians. It only expresses the hostility 
which that which is good must always call out in that which is 
evil. Our love for the brethren assures us that we have already 
passed out of the state of hatred and death, and now abide in 
that of life. For life is love. He who does not love is still in 
the state of death. Every one who does not love his brother is 
a murderer, in the eyes of all to whom the true issues of things 
are manifest, even though he has so far stayed his hand from 
violence. And your common consciousness as men tells you 
that no murderer can have the higher life in him as a permanent 
and abiding principle of action. 

13. μὴ θαυμάζετε] cf. Jn. iii. 7 (μὴ θαυμάσῃς), where the aorist 
emphasizes the immediate feeling aroused by a particular thought, 
or action, rather than the more permanent feeling called out 
by what is continuous. Cf. also Jn. v. 28, where the form of 
sentence refers to the continuous feeling, not to the momentary 
surprise, which the fact that the hour was coming, when all the 
dead should hear the voice of the Son of God, might occasion. 
The construction with the present imperative is the usual con- 
struction in the Johannine writings, the aorist subjunctive being 
only used in the passage quoted above. Here it is significant. 
The hatred of the world was an abiding attitude, always liable 
to provoke unchristian retaliation, and always a temptation to the 
more “intelligent” to neglect their duty to their weaker brethren. 


μη ABCoor KL al. pler. vg. sah. cop. syr. Lcif. Did. Thphyl. Oec.] 
pr. καὶ & Οὗ P15. 18. 29. 36. 66**. 98. 191 cat.* syr. am. aeth. 

αδελῴοι & ABCD al. mu. cat. vg. arm. Leif. Did.]+pmov KL al. 
longe. plu. syr. sah. cop. aeth. (ημων) Thphyl. Occ. 

unas] nuas sah, 75 1302 (219) O%8 (154). 


14. ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν] The appeal is to the Christian conscious- 
ness, shared by writers and readers alike. Their experience as 
Christians has taught them that conscious life is dormant till 


94 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [III. 14, 15. 


it is called out in active love and fellowship. Cf. Augustine 
(Tract. v. 10),.“‘ Nemo interroget hominem ; redeat unusquisque 
ad cordem suum: si ibi inuenerit charitatem fraternam, securus 
sit quia transiit a morte ad uitam.” 

6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν] The statement is put in its most general form. 
The state in which love has not been called out into conscious 
activity isa state of death. Life is the chance of learning how 
love not only “ might be,” but “is.” 

The addition of τὸν ἀδελφόν in the Aeceptus is natural in 
the light of the preceding clause and of ver. 16. But it 
narrows down the writer’s meaning unnecessarily. In his more 
absolute statements he shows himself fully aware that the duty 
of love is absolute, and has a wider application than the Christian 
Society, even as the Christ is the propitation for the whole world, 
though in a practical Epistle he lays most stress on what is 
first practicable. 

Tous adeAgpous] + ἡμῶν & 68. 58lect syr. Sah. 
ο μὴ ayarwv τὲ AB 13. 27. 29. vg. sah?> arm. Did. Leif. Aug.]+7ov 
adedgov C K L Ρ αἱ. pler. sah” cop. syr. Thphyl. Oec. Cassiod. {- αὐτου 


P al.!° sahw cop. syr. aeth.) : τοὺς adehpous 15. 
o] - δὲ 75 388 (24). 


15. πᾶς ὁ μισῶν κιτ.λ.] Cf. Aug. (Zvact. v. 10). “Non movet 
manus ad occidendum hominem, homicida iam tenetur a 
Domino; uiuit ille, et iste iam interfector iudicatur.” Hatred 
is the moving cause, whether or not the occasion for its final 
display has presented itself and been used. Cf. Mt. v. 23, 24. 

ἀνθρωποκτόνος] Cf. Jn. viii. 44, the only other instance of 
its use in the N.T. It is, of course, used here in its literal sense 
of actual murderer, not of the murderer of the soul. 

οἴδατε] It is axiomatic. Their natural consciousness as men 
will tell them that the higher life cannot be communicated as 
a permanent possession to such an one. ‘The writer does not 
avoid the use of irony when it suits his purpose. 

μένουσαν) CE Jn. i. 32, 33, Ὁ: 38, YL 273 1 Jn. il. τἡ. 21: 
2 Jn. 2. The word suggests that eternal life is both “a con- 
tinuous power and a communicated life.” Wohlenberg’s attempt 
to connect the word μένουσαν with the following verse (Μένουσαν 
ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην) is ingenious rather than convincing. 
Though it is not absolutely necessary to the sense, its position 
is justified by the μένει of ver. 14, and it serves to heighten the 
impossibility of the rejected hypothesis. 

mas .. . οὐ] The usual “ Hebraistic” expression, or at least 
the form of expression which a Jew writing Greek would 
naturally adopt. Cf. 1 Jn. il. 19, 21, etc.; and see Moulton’s 
note, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. p. 245 f. Such 
phrases as χωρὶς πάσης ὑπερθέσεως show that “vernacular usage” 


IIT. 15, 16. NOTES.ON 1 JOHN 95 


only needed to be extended “under the encouragement of a 
similar idiom in Hebrew.” But so far as the evidence goes it 
would seem that there has been “extension” in the Semitic 
direction. The construction is not found in the Gospel. 


αὐτου] εαυτου B. 

οιδατε] οἰδαμεν 75 114 (335) sahv> boh. : pr. οὐκ 18 5 (69), 
mas 25]-[ο 70 8 (1149). 

εν αὐτω BK al. plu. Thphyl. Oec.] ev eavrw 8 ALC P 81.830. 
αιωνιον] om, 79 116. 114 ( _ ), 

μενουσαν] om. sah4, 


16-18. Description of true love, and exhortation to its 
practice. The essence of love was manifested once for all, 
finally and completely, when the Christ gave His life for men. 
We know what true love really is in the light of that example. 
And we cannot but recognize our obligation to follow it, if need 
be even to the last sacrifice, for our brethren. There is, however, 
a simple test by which we can know at once whether we are at 
least on the road which leads to the possession of truelove. He 
who is unwilling to give of his external possessions, where need is 
obvious and well known to him, has not even begun to cherish 
true love for God in his soul. True love proves itself in action. 
It cannot stop short at expressions of which the tongue is the 
instrument. It must show by actual deeds that the words in 
which it is professed correspond to real feelings of the heart. 

16. ἐν τούτῳ] The reference is to what follows, according to 
the writer’s usual custom, especially when a clause with ὅτι 
follows. 

τὴν ἀγάπην] Absolute. There is no need to supply a genitive, 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ or τοῦ θεοῦ. The true nature of love was manifested 
in such a way that men could learn to realize it, with abiding 
effects on their character and life (ἐγνώκαμεν). 

ἐκεῖνος] He: neither writer nor readers feel the need for 
further definition by the addition of a name. Cf. the notes on 
VV. 3; /4- 

ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] He for us: the Christ, the Son of God, 
for such as we are. ‘The contrast is heightened by the order of 
the words. There are no depths of sacrifice to which true love 
will not stoop. 

τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν] Neither of the O.T. phrases, which 
are usually quoted, 1232 wb) ow and ows wr) Own (15. 1Π|. 
10), afford a sufficiently close parallel to suggest an interpreta- 
tion. The additions, of 1533 in the one case, and DWN in the 
other, determine the exact sense of DY. The Rabbinic phrases 
quoted by Schlatter (on Jn. x. 11) all have jn. The usage of 
the Fourth Gospel is a safer guide. Cf. Jn. x. 11, 15, 17, 18, 
ΧΙ, 37-38, xv. 13, and also xiil. 4, τίθησι τὰ ἱμάτια. The latter 


96 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [Π7 16, 17. 


passage suggests the idea of laying aside, as a garment is put off, 
which agrees well with the use of the phrase in Jn. x. 18. The 
usage of τιθέναι in Jn. ii. το, τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν, can hardly 
help us to determine its meaning here. The phrase does not 
occur again in the Johannine Books. The Latin translation 
“dat” in Jn. x. 11 is, of course, derived from the Western 
variant δίδωσιν ( Ὁ). Elsewhere the Vulgate uses jonere. 
Spitta’s suggestions (ZVZW x. [1909] p. 78), that the phrase 
is used rightly in vv. 11, 15, in the sense of risking or staking 
his life for the sheep, and taken up in a different sense (of giving, 
or laying down) in the later interpolation of vv. 17, 18, is worthy of 
consideration, but it has perhaps been influenced by the Hebrew 
phrase, where the meaning, as has been pointed out, is deter- 
mined by the added 1533. If the distinction is to be main- 
tained, the present verse agrees with the “later” passage. 

καὶ ἡμεῖς x.7.A.] It is not clear whether this clause is added 
to the first clause, ἐκεῖνος... . ἔθηκεν, and governed by ὅτι, or is 
to be regarded as a consequence of the example set by the 
Christ. The obligation, which all good men recognize, to 
sacrifice their lives, if need be, for others, may be part of the 
means whereby we learn what true love is. Such a κοινὴ évvoia 
of good men throws the clearest light on the nature of love. But 
the obligation, as felt by ‘‘us,” may also be regarded as the 
consequence of what Christ has done. When once the perfect 
example has been set, the duty of all disciples to follow it is 
clear. Grammatically the first is preferable. But the use of καί 
in this Epistle is wide. The writer always thinks as a Hebrew, 
and this is reflected in his forms of expression. The second 
interpretation is therefore grammatically admissible. And it has 
the advantage of far greater simplicity and directness. The 
emphatic ἡμεῖς, moreover, is in favour of it. 


eyrwxapev] εγνωμεν 72 551 (216): γινωσκομεν 75 114 (335). 

τὴν αγαπην] του θεου 52 vg. (am. demid. harl.) arm-codd. boh- 
codd. :+zfszus m tol. Vig. : +ezus, Ambrst. 

τὴν Wuxnv αὐτου εθηκεν ὑπερ nuwy 75 5901 (83), 

μων] ὑμῶν [175+ 502 (510) 20 398. 78 8507. 8368 (60), 

ὑπερ των αδελῴφων] post ψυχας 75 847 (209) 7? 6597 (241) Le 551 (216) 
K 6200 (922), 

εθηκεν] τεθεικεν 4. 31. 40: τεθηκεν 75 76+ 5° (233): ponit ante τὴν φυχ. 
aurou 31*. 

υπερ] περι P. 

των αδελῴφων] αλληλων Doh. 751} (335): Ἑημων 75 101. 1 (40). 

θειναι δ ΑΙ ΒΟΡ 5. 15. 26. 27. 29. 68] τιθεναι K Lal. pler. Thphyl. Oec. 


17. The practical test. Wider obligations may be acknow- 
ledged with all readiness in theory, where a more homely test 
reveals the extent of a man’s failure. The writer is always 
enforcing the truth that philanthropy begins at home. Cf. Philo, 


III. 17, 18.] NOTES ON I JOHN 97 


De Post. Cain, 86 (Cohn, ii. 18), τί yap ὄφελος λέγειν μὲν τὰ βέλ- 
τιστα, διανοεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ πράττειν τὰ αἴσχιστα; σοφιστῶν οὗτος ὃ 
τρόπος. 

τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου] Well paraphrased in Augustine’s version, 
Jacultates mundi. Bios always denotes life in its external aspects. 
Cf. ii. 16, ἡ dAaLovia ποῦ βίου: Mk. xii. 44 (=Lk. xxi. 4); 
1 Ti. ii. 2; 2 Ti. 11. 4; and for the verb, 1 P. iv. 2, τὸν ἐπίλοιπον 
ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον. Cf. also Ac. xxvi. 4, τὴν . . . βίωσίν pov 
ἐκ νεότητος. Consequently, Bios is rare in the N.T., while ζωή 
occurs more than a hundred times. 

θεωρῇ] Behold: not merely cast a passing glance, but see, 
long enough to appreciate and understand the circumstances of 
fievease Ci. Jn. xx 63 Ac, iv. τῷ; Apoc. xi τε 

χρείαν ἔχοντα] Cf. 11. 27; and for the use of the phrase 
absolutely, Mk. il. 25; Ac. il. 45, iv. 35; Eph. iv. 28. 

κλείσῃ] Cf. Ps. Ixxvi. (Ixxvil.) το, ἢ συνέξει τοὺς οἰκτειρμοὺς 
αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ αὐτοῦ; cf. also Dt. xv. 7, ἐὰν γένηται ἐν σοὶ 
ἐνδεής... οὐκ ἀποστέρξεις τὴν καρδίαν σου. The word perhaps 
suggests that a barrier has to be raised against the natural 
human feelings which the contemplation of such a case calls out. 

τὰ σπλάγχνα] Cf. Pr. xii. 10, τὰ δὲ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἀσεβῶν 
ἀνελεήμονα. The word is not found in the earlier parts of the 
Septuagint, and only in this passage is it used to translate ὉΠ, 


which in the Psalms is paraphrased by οἰκτιρμοί (Ps. xxiv. 
(xxv.) 6, and in Isaiah (xlvii. 6) by ἔλεος. See Lightfoot’s note 
on Ph. i. 8. The classical distinction between σπλάγχνα and 
ἔντερα (not in N.T.) is not to be found in Hebrew forms of 
expression. 

τοῦ θεοῦ] The context determines that the genitive must be 
objective. Cf. v. 3. 


exn] exer τις 7. 388 (56). 

θεωρη] θεωρει K L 29. 40 alplus 20, 

αὐτου (? 1°)] om. 75 7, 

κλειση] κλεισει L 13 al. 

am αὐτου] om. 7} 68° (1319), 

ev] ex 287 (303) 235K (2) ΑΙ δι (62), 


18. texvia] The appeal is made, as usual, on the ground of 
the common spiritual nature which they all share. 

ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ] The phrase is contrasted with λόγῳ and 
γλώσσῃ. Practical love corresponds to inward truth. Much 
protestation is a mere exercise of the tongue. 


texvia NABCP al’ cat. m am. syr. arm. Clem. Dam, Aug.]+uov 
K Lal. longe. plur. vg. (fu. demid. etc.) syr. sah. cop. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. 

αγαπωμεν] αγαπατε H δδ (Ψ). 

λογω] pr. εν H 8 (Ψ) 25 191. 364, 65 (40) : pr, τω 75 115. 502 (310). 

μηδε] kat & syr. aeth, 


7 


98 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [4aI. 19f. 


τη Ὑλωσση ABCK Lal. plu. Dam. Thphyl.] om. τη δὲ P al. sat. mu. 
cat. arm. Clem. Oec. 

ev] om. K al. permu. cat. Dam. Oec. 

adnbea]+guia sumus ex ueritate sah, 


19f. The consciousness that their love for God is true and 
active, assures men of their fellowship with God, that they are 
“of the truth.” The choice of phrase is determined by the 
language of ver. 18. Practically it is equivalent to εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ 
θεοῦ. And the consciousness of this fellowship brings assurance, 
in spite of what the conscience has to tell of thoughts and 
deeds which mar its realization. Even before God, in whose 
presence no falsehood can stand, the Christian can “still” his 
heart: for the all-knowing God is greater than the accusing 
conscience. Knowing all, He knows that the love is true, and 
is the determining element of the character, notwithstanding the 
many failures which interrupt its complete realization. His 
knowledge is absolute. He can see the whole, and He has 
accepted the love which is real and active as sufficient ground 
for admitting the man to His fellowship. Cf. Jn. xxi. 17, πάντα 
σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ oe. The accusations of conscience 
are stilled in the presence of omniscient holiness, which is perfect 
love. 

At first sight the omniscience of God may seem a strange 
ground for the confidence of men, who are conscious of sins 
that interrupt their fellowship with God. ‘‘If as natural men we 
shrink from allowing our neighbours to see into our heart, much 
more are we terrified at the thought that the holy God penetrates 
to the depth of our hearts” (Rothe). But in the case of 
Christians, who are conscious of the relationship to God in which 
they stand, it is otherwise. ‘Their security lies in the fact that 
this relationship has been established by one who knows all the 
circumstances of the case. There is no fear of alteration in the 
light of fuller knowledge. 

But how can such confidence be said to be derived from the 
practice of love, in the sphere in which it is first possible, 2.6. in 
love of the brethren? The answer is that in such activities they 
have learned to know of a love, other than that based on physical 
kinship, which is not merely the “cloak of self-seeking ” ; and the 
more Clearly its true character is recognized, the more clearly it 
is seen that such love is of the very Being of God. So the all- 
knowing “were the all-loving too.” The surest ground of our 
confidence is the knowledge that “our help standeth in the zame 
of the Lord,” who is love. 

Thus the general meaning of these verses is fairly plain. 
They have always been recognized as touching the very heart of 
the Christian faith. The exact interpretation, however, of each 


III. 19f.] NOTES ON I JOHN 99 


clause is a matter of considerable difficulty. The meaning of 
πείσομεν is disputed, as also of the first and second ὅτι. The 
difficulties caused by the sequence of two clauses introduced by 
ὅτι have led to the removal of the second ὅτι from some texts. 
(1) If πείσομεν is taken in its usual sense of ‘ persuade,” 
(a) the fact of which we “persuade our heart” may be left 
unstated, to be gathered from the context. If so, we must 
supply ‘“‘that we are of the truth” from the preceding verse. 
This is grammatically unobjectionable, and gives an adequate 
sense. Even though our heart (conscience) convicts us of sins 
which separate us from God, we can nevertheless persuade 
ourselves that we are really of the truth, because God is greater 
than our hearts, in knowledge and in love, and has recognized 
our position, in spite of, or perhaps we should say in consequence 
of, the fact that He knows all, and so is qualified to judge. 
(8) The fact may be found in the second clause, “that God is 
greater than our heart.” Against this the objection is hardly 
valid that the fact is too obvious to be disputed. The question 
is not of the objective truth of the fact, but of our subjective 
apprehension of it, under circumstances which make its realiza- 
tion peculiarly difficult (ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ «.t.r.). On the other 
hand, Dr. Westcott’s objection would seem to hold good, that 
“the consciousness of a sincere love of the brethren does not 
furnish the basis of the conviction of the sovereign greatness of 
God.” (y) If the first suggestion (a) is felt to be unsatisfactory, 
there is some authority for the absolute use of πείθειν in the 
sense On S771," assure, appease, tranquillize. Cf. Mt. XXVili. 14, 
καὶ ἐὰν ἀκουσθῇ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, ἡμεῖς πείσομεν καὶ ὑμᾶς 
ἀμερίμνους ποιήσομεν (where, however, the reference may be to 
the contents of ver. 13, the asserted theft of the body by the 
disciples) ; 2 Mac. iv. 45, ἐπηγγείλατο χρήματα. . . πρὸς τὸ πεῖσαι 
τὸν βασιλέα. We can appease our heart, can still the qualms of 
conscience, with the knowledge that God who knows all has 
admitted us to His fellowship and love, a fact of which we are 
assured by the active love for others which His love has kindled 
in our hearts. This is perhaps the simplest interpretation, 
though as an explanation of πείσομεν it is less natural than (a). 
(2) The exact meaning of ὅτι in each clause and their mutual 
relations are of less moment. The meanings “that” or “ be- 
cause” have to some extent come under consideration in con- 
nection with πείθειν. But the relation of the first clause to the 
second is doubtful. (a) The second ὅτι may be regarded as 
resumptive, either in the sense of “that,” or “because.” The 
resumptive is more natural in the former than in the latter case. 
It is possible in either case. But the use of the resumptive ὅτι 
after so short a clause is not really natural, and is not in accord 


100 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [IIT. 19f. 


with the style of the writer. (8) The first ὅτι may be relative, 
‘“‘Whereinsoever our heart condemns us,” the second ὅτι being 
taken in the sense of either “that” or ‘‘ because.” This inter- 
pretation relieves the sentence of an awkward and unnecessary 
resumptive particle, and it may be paralleled by instances of the 
use of 6 τι ἄν in the Gospel, which are not indeed identical, but 
are sufficiently similar to justify its adoption here. Cf. Jn. ii. 5, 
xiv. 13, xv. τό. If we take into consideration the author’s habit 
of throwing forward for the sake of emphasis a word or words 
which stand outside the general construction of his sentence, 
we may feel justified in assuming that he has here made use of an 
accusatival clause (of respect) in rather loose connection with 
the rest of the verse. For the use of 6 τι ἀν (ἐάν), cf. Mk. vi. 
22. Ba 50: 

In what has been said, it has, of course, been assumed that 
the omniscience of God is alleged as a ground for confidence 
not for fear (if our own heart condemn us, the judgment of 
omniscient justice must be far more severe). The opposite view 
has been stoutly maintained by Wohlenberg in the series of 
articles referred to above (Weue Kirkliche Zeitschrift, 1902, 
Ρ. 636 ff.), and also by Findlay (Zxfosttor, November, 1905). 
Cf. also the comment of the Catena (Cramer, viii. 128), ἐάν, 
φησίν, ἁμάρτωμεν οὐ λανθάνομεν, οὐδὲ διαφευξόμεθα" εἰ yap ἅμαρ- 
τάνοντες τὴν καρδίαν ἑαυτῶν λαθεῖν (? ins. οὐ) δυνάμεθα, ἀλλὰ 
νυττόμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ συνειδότος, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸν θεὸν πράττοντές τι 
τῶν φαύλων (? μὴ) δυνηθῶμεν λαθεῖν ; 

It makes the connection between vy. 19 and 20 almost im- 
possible to explain. It can only be done by interposing a 
thought which is left altogether without expression in the passage. 
‘We shall assure our heart—and we shall have great need to do 
so; for if our conscience condemn us, how much more severe 
must necessarily be the verdict of the omniscient God!” If this 
is what the writer meant, he has severely taxed the powers of 
his readers to follow his argument. And the aim of the whole 
passage is surely to give assurance, and not to strike terror into 
their hearts. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that 
vv. 20 and 21 are intended to meet the circumstances of two 
different classes of people, the self-confident and the self- 
distrustful. 

In the explanation given of this passage it has been assumed 
that ἐν τούτῳ refers back to the previous verse, which is contrary 
to the common usage of the writer, though perhaps not unparal- 
leled. It is, however, possible to find the test of knowledge, 
and consequent assurance, in the sentence ὅτι μείζων----πάντα. 
The thought of God’s power and omniscience may give us 
assurance that we are “of the truth.” We have been accepted 


Tit. 19f., 21 8} NOTES ON I JOHN IOI 


by one who knows all the circumstances. In view of the 
writer’s usage there is much to be said for this interpretation. 
The general meaning of the passage is not affected by it. 
Windisch is inclined to regard the passage as corrupt, and 
suggests that we should read οὐ πείσομεν, and cut out the clause 
ὅτι ἐάν... καρδία as an interpolation based on ver. 21. Thus 
amended, the passage would certainly contain a warning to the 
self-confident, against which no exception could be taken. But 
the best criticism on the suggestion is his own next sentence, 
“Das beste ist freilich man bleibt bei der Konstatierung: der 
Text is verderbt.” The writer knows how to use the irony of 
the commonplace, but he did not use it here. 


ev rourw A B 40 ds“ al® vg. cop. syr. Clem.] pr. e¢ sah. boh-cod.: om. 
NC KL Pal. longe. plu. cat. syr. aeth. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. : αλλ ex 
τουτου 69 as“, 

γνωσομεθα 8 ABCP 6. 7. 15. 18. 22. 27. 29. 33. 36. 40. 66**. 68. 69. 
137 as jst cat. sah. cop. arm. Clem. Dam.] γινώσκομεν K Lal. pler. vg. 
syr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. 

ἐσμεν] εστι 2218 (395). 

πεισομεν] πεισωμεν 5. 27. 29. 69 as al. fere.!” Thphyl. 

τὴν καρδιαν] A* B 66** sah. boh. syr. aeth. Aug.] ras καρδιας ἐξ A? 
C KL Pal. fere. omn. cat. vg. arm. syr. Thphyl. Oec. 

eav] αν A al. pauc. 

καταγινωσκη ἡμων] post καρδια 7} 49 (215). 

καταγινωσκη] καταγινωσκει L 13. 100. 106. 107*. al, 

ort 25 NS BC K Lal. plu. cat. syr.] om. A 13. 33. 34. 63 ds“ (vg, 
sah>w cop. arm. aeth. Oec. Aug. non exprimunt). 

μειζων) μειζον K. 

ἐστιν] om, 48 252-8459 55 (391) 70 309: (386), 

Geos] κυριος Ο. 

ἡμῶν 25] om. arm-ed. 

πανται pr. Ta 25. “951-108. 216 (749), 


21 ff. If our conscience acquits us, the result is a feeling of 
joyful confidence in the sight of God, and the consciousness 
that our prayers are answered, because of our obedience and 
willing service. 

ἀγαπητοί] Cf. ii. 7, ili. 2, one of the writer’s favourite forms 
of address, and frequent in this second part of the Epistle, in 
which the main topic is love (iv. 1, 7, 11). 

ἐὰν κιτιλ.] The clause is most naturally interpreted in its 
widest sense, regarded neither as an antithesis to ver. 20 nor as 
a continuation of it. It includes all cases in which the verdict 
of the conscience is favourable, both those in which there has 
been no condemnation, and those in which assurance has been 
gained in spite of the condemnation of the heart, from the 
thought of the greatness and omniscience of God. 

ἣ καρδία μὴ καταγινώσκῃ] Contrast the order of ver. 20. The 
stress is here laid on the faculty which passes judgment. The 
writer follows his usual custom of stating a principle absolutely, 


102 THE EPISTLES' OFS: JOHN [Tit j2iaes: 


without considering the modifications which become necessary 
when it is applied to the individual case. In so far as the con- 
science passes a verdict of acquittal, the results stated necessarily 
follow. And the statement is made in the most absolute form, 
“if the heart do not condemn,” though ἡμῶν has naturally been 
supplied in many texts, after καρδία and again after καταγινώσκῃ. 
The reading of Β (ἔχει for ἔχομεν), which makes the heart the 
subject of the apodosis as well as of the protasis, is interesting. 
The form of ver. 20, however, makes it improbable that this is 
the original text. 

παρρησίαν] Cf. ver. 14 and note. Boldness and confidence 
are the ideas which the word generally suggests, while here that 
of freedom of intercourse in “speaking with God” in prayer is 
prominent. ‘The phrase denotes, of course, the boldness and 
freedom from restraint with which the children can approach 
their Father always, rather than the clear conscience and con- 
fidence with which they can await the verdict of the Judge on 
the Last Day. 

αγαπητοι] αδελῴφοι N. 

εαν] αν A, 

ἡ καρδιὰ A Β 13. 27. 30. 66**. 113 fu. Or. Dam. Aug.]+yuwy SC ΚΙ, 
al. pler. cat. vg. (am. ΕΝ, harl. tol.) arm. 5001. sah. cop. aeth. Or. Dam. 
Thphyl. Oec. cat. Cyp. D 

μη] om. J**7 (96) ΠΣ (242). 

καταγινωσκη BC 68. Or.] καταγινωσκει A L 13. 100. 106 al.35° al, 
4114. Dam. :+yuwv & A K Lal. pler. cat. vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Or. 


Dam. Did. 
exouev] exwvev 13 al. pauc. Dam.: exer B 29. 


22. The second result of the favourable verdict. ΑἹ] re- 
quests are granted which can be put forward in the freedom 
of intercourse which has been described. For the conditions 
which make it possible are obedience to the Divine commands, 
and willing and active serving in doing whatever is known to be 
according to His will. Every true prayer is the expression of 
the desire to obey and to do the will in those matters with which 
the request is concerned. We may compare the noble Jewish 
saying, “‘Do His Will as if it were thine, that He may do thy 
will as if it were His.” 

The two clauses express the two duties of obedience and 
willing service. True obedience to the Will of God must become 
spontaneous before it is made perfect. 

τὰ ἀρεστά] The particular things which are pleasing in His 
sight, in the circumstances with reference to which the prayer 
is offered. Cf. Jn. vill. 29, οὐκ ἀφῆκέν με μόνον, ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ 
αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε, the only other instance of the use of τὰ 
ἀρεστά in the New Testament (ἀρεστόν, Ac. xil. 3; Vi. 2). Ch 
the Pauline edapeoros, Eph. v. 10, δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον 


III. 22-24. | NOTES ON I JOHN 103 


τῷ κυρίῳ: Col. iii, 20, τοῦτο yap εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ. CF. 
He. xiii. 21, ποιῶν ἐν ἡμῖν τὸ εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. 

For the general teaching of this verse on the subject of 
prayer, cf. Mk. xi. 24, διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε 
καὶ αἰτεῖσθε, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν : JN. XIV. 12, 13, 
ΧΥΪ. 23, ix. 31. The most interesting parallel is to be found in 
Job xxii. 23-27, of which the present verse may contain re- 
miniscences, as Holtzmann suggests ; cf. especially ver. 26f. εἶτα 

/ 3 ΄ ’ 3 / > Ν ΕἸ A ε - 
παρρησιασθήσῃ ἐναντίον Κυρίου, ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἱλαρῶς. 
εὐξαμένου δέ σου πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰσακούσεταί σου, δώσει δέ σοι ἀπο- 
δοῦναι τὰς εὐχάς. 


o εανἹ οτι αν K (45). 

eav] av B 31. 42. 105 as** Dam. 

atwuev ABC K Lal. omn"4] αἰτωμεθα τὲ Or. : αἰτησομεν 75 118. 8454 (156), 

λαμβανομεν accipiemus vg. boh. arm-codd. sah. syr. Cyp. Leif. 

απ] ἐξ ABC 5. 13. 27. 29. 33. 34. 68. 69. 137 as 8P° Dam.] παρ K L 
al. pler. cat. Or. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. 

τηρουμεν BC Lal. plu. Dam.] τηρωμεν & A K 40. 98 al.4. 


28, 24. Transition to the other command (of right belief), the 
fulfilment of which is also a sign that our religious standing is 
right. These two verses are clearly transitional, and serve to 
emphasize what is essential in the matter of obedience to His 
commands, and so to lead the way to the second statement of the 
Christological thesis, the necessity of a true confession and right 
belief. The commandments are summed up in the One Com- 
mand, of belief and love. The following of the Christ, shown 
most clearly and characteristically in active love of men, is the 
essential condition of fellowship. And this fellowship is mutual. 
We abide in Him. He abides in us. The human side and the 
Divine are both essential parts of the Christian standing. Real 
fellowship issues in obedience. He who abides in Him keeps 
His commandments, not as a series of literal precepts, but as a 
life-giving principle (τηρεῖν, as contrasted with φυλάσσειν). And 
we are assured of the reality of the fellowship by the presence of 
the Spirit which He has given us. In these transitional verse 
three new points are introduced: (1) The mention of πιστεύων 
here for the first time used in the Epistle. (2) The emphasis o 
the Divine side of the fellowship, αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν. (3) The mention 
of the Spirit. 

(1) The introduction of the idea of “believing” is as abrupt 
here as it is in the partly parallel passage in the Gospel, vi. 29, 
τοῦτό ἐστι TO ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς Ov ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, 
where the emphasis is on personal trust and devotion (πιστεύειν 
eis), rather than on conviction as to the truth of certain facts 
about the object of πιστεύειν (rior. «. dat.). The reason of this 


104 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [III. 23. 


difference of stress is clear. Thus far in the Epistle, emphasis has 
been laid on the necessity of obedience to the commands of the 
Christ, especially to the law of love. The following of the Christ 
has been shown to be the necessary expression of Christian life, 
without which it is a ‘‘lie” to claim that the life is that of a 
Christian. But He must be followed because of what He zs. 
Conviction, therefore, as to what He is must necessarily precede 
obedience to what He commands. No other peasant of Galilee 
has the right to command the allegiance of men. The writer is 
anxious to remind his readers of this, since the preceding 
meditations, which deal rather with practical issues, might tend 
to obscure its importance. 

(2) The transitional verses, which helped to introduce the 
section of the Epistle here brought to its close, emphasized the 
human side of the fellowship of Christians with God (ii. 28, μένετε 
ἐν αὐτῷ). But the Divine side is essential, and on this the writer 
proceeds to lay stress in the following chapter. In the second 
part of ver. 24 this is made clear, γινώσκομεν ὅτι μένει ἐν ἡμῖν. 
“Fellowship with God, and consciousness of it, rest upon the 
acknowledgment and appropriation of a divine act and of the 
divine nature of love” (Haupt). 

+ (9) Christians are conscious that God “abides in them” 
because they are conscious of the presence of the Spirit which 
'God has given them. The repetition of this statement in iv. 13 
hows that the words must be taken in this sense here. The 
thought is developed in the next section of the Epistle. God 
has really given His Spirit to men, though all spiritual influences 
to which men feel themselves to be subject are not the work of 
God’s Spirit. Men must distinguish between the true and the 
false. 

23. αὕτη] points forward according to the writer’s usual 
custom. Cf. note oni. 5. 

iva πιστεύσωμεν] The ἵνα is definitive, as elsewhere in the 
Epistles and Gospel where it is preceded by αὕτη. The aorist 
is probably the true text. As contrasted with the present πιστ- 
evwmev, Which was not unnaturally substituted for it, it lays stress, 
not on the initial act of faith (this is only ove of the uses of the 
aorist, and not the most frequent), but on the whole process 
conceived as an unity. The conviction is regarded as one fact, 
not as a continuous process continuously exercising its influence 
on men. The aorist emphasizes the single fact, without in any 
way suggesting the length of time occupied in its manifestation. 
It can quite naturally sum up the action, or actions, of a period 
or of a lifetime, which it regards as “one act at once.” 

τῷ ὀνόματι] The construction (¢. daz.) expresses conviction of 
the truth of a statement rather than devotion to a person (eis 


III. 28, 24.] NOTES ON 1 JOHN 105 


c.acc.). The expression, therefore, denotes conviction that Christ 
really is that which His name implies Him to be. It would, of 
course, be a serious misstatement of the facts to state that this is 
all, or the chief part, of what the writer means by πιστεύειν. Cf. 
Scott, Zhe Fourth Gospel, p. 267, “It is evident, even to a super- 
ficial reader, that the ‘believing’ so constantly insisted on by 
John is something much narrower and poorer than the Pauline 
‘faith.’ It implies not so much an inward disposition of trust 
and obedience, as the acceptance of a given dogma. To ‘believe’ 
is to grant the hypothesis that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the 
Son of God,”—a very misleading statement, somewhat modified, 
however, by the succeeding paragraphs. But by using this 
particular construction (c. dat.) the writer does in certain cases 
emphasize this particular meaning. When he defines the “ work 
of God” in Jn. vi. 29, he is careful to use a different expression 
(iva πιστεύητε cis ὃν ἀπέστειλεν). 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] “Α compressed creed,” the 
complete revelation of the Father, the man who lived on earth a 
true human life, the promised Messiah who fulfilled the expecta- 
tions of Jews and of all men. Cf. Jn. xx. 31. [{ is only in living 
out the commands of such an one that men can realize the fulness 
of their nature. 
καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν] All His commands are summed up in the one 
command to love, obedience to which must begin with those 
closest to hand. 
καθὼς ἔδωκεν] The new command was to love according to a 
new standard, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς, Jn. xiii. 34. The references 
to the discourses of the Upper Chamber are very obvious through- 
out these verses. 
πιστευσωμεν BK L al. pler. cat. Oec.] πίστενωμεν & AC al.” fere. 
(-σομεν 99. 100) Thphyl. 
τω. .. Χριστου NBCK Lal. pler. vg. etc.] τω ov. αὐτου ιῦ χῶ A 43 
(uid.): τω vw αὐτου ww χῶ 3. 13. 15. 18. 26. 37. 67. 81 ds al. pauc. aeth. 
Tw ονοματι] εἰς TO ονομα 5. 58lect, 
inoou] pr. του κῦ 75 © (317), 
εδωκεν] post ἐντολὴν 75 Τὸῦ (505) 7} 472 (312), 
ἐντολὴν] post ἡμιν 75 110. 254 (202) 7} 4206 (242) 70.174 (252), 
ἡμῖν ἀξ Α Β (Ὁ ἃ]. mu. cat. vg. etc. Thphyl. Oec-cod. Leif.] om. K Lh 
al. fere,™ Oec. ed: 


24. καὶ ὃ τηρῶν κ-τ.λ.] Cf. Jn. xiv. το, etc., and the latter part 
of xvii. The chief point in dispute in this verse is the reference 
of the pronouns. At first sight the reference to Christ’s com- 
mand in ver. 23 would suggest that in this verse αὐτοῦ, etc., must 
be referred to Christ. But in ver. 22 the ἐντολαί are spoken of 
as God’s commands, and the αὐτοῦ of ver. 23 must refer to God 
(τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ). It is therefore more natural to interpret them in 
the same way in this verse. Cf. iv. 13, where the reference must 


106 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [111. 24, IV.1. 


be to God. It is true that in the Last Discourses μένειν is 
generally connected with Christ, but cf. xvii. 21, ἵνα αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν 
ὦσιν. It is in Christ that fellowship with God is realized. 

τηρεῖν} Cf. the note on ii. 4. 

αὐτὸς ἐν αὐτῷ] See the note ἐμοὺς (2). The divine side of 
the relation is brought out in ch. 

ἐν τούτῳ] Either (1) ἐν τῷ pes A ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, in the fact of 
our obedience to His commands we realize His fellowship with 
us, Or (2) ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, the gift of the Spirit, of which we are 
conscious, assures us of the fact of fellowship. The repetition of 
the verse, in a slightly altered form, in iv. 13 makes it almost 
necessary to interpret the phrase thus. 

οὗ] An ordinary instance of attraction. The genitive is not 
partitive. With the partitive genitive 5. John commonly has ἐκ: 
2 Jn: 4; Jn. 1. 24, vil. 40, etc. 

ἔδωκεν] emphasizes the fact. In iv. 13 the permanent effects 
of the gift are brought into prominence. 


kat 3° N° ABC KL al. pler. vg. syr. cop. rell.] om. &* 18. 38. 80. 95**. 
137 cSt al.2scr sah, Aug. 

ev TouTw] εκ τουτου 7114 (335). 

ev ἡμιν ever 75 5'89 (7379) 7° 551 (216). 

ἡμῖν 22 ABCLal. pler. cat. fu. Bas.] post εδωκεν δὲ K 22. 25. 31. 34. 
38. 42. 57. 68. 69. 80. 137 as alPlusl0 yo. (am. demid. harl. tol.) sah. 
cap. syr. arm. Ath. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. 


II. iv. 1-6. The Christological thesis. The Spirit which is 
of God recognizes Jesus as the Christ come in flesh. 

1. iv. 1-8. Content of the Confession. 

iv. 1-3. In accordance with his usual custom, the writer 
finds a transition to a new section in the repetition of the last 
prominent idea. The gift of the Spirit ensures to them know- 
ledge. But all spiritual activities of the time could not be 
traced back to the Spirit of God as their source. ‘The sugges- 
tions of every spirit could not be accepted as true. As at 
Corinth in the days of S. Paul, spiritual phenomena must be 
tested. And the reader’s experience supplied them with a 
test by which they could know whether the spirits were of God 
or not. ‘The surest criterion was the confession of the Incarna- 
tion, or rather of the Incarnate Christ. Those who saw in 
Jesus of Nazareth as He appeared on earth in fleshly form the 
complete revelation of the Father, were of God. Those who 
refused to confess Jesus were not of God. Such a refusal was 
the peculiar characteristic of Antichrist, whose coming they had 
been taught to expect, and whose working they could already 
perceive. 

1. ἀγαπητοί] Cf. ii. 7, etc. “The writer appeals to the 
common bond of love which unites them all, in order to call 


IV. 1.] NOTES ON I JOHN 107 


out their best efforts for the common good. This address now 
becomes frequent (1, 7, 11), the main topic being love. 

μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε] Cf. Didache, xi. 8, od πᾶς δὲ ὁ 
λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους 
Κυρίου. ἀπὸ οὖν τῶν τρόπων γνωσθήσεται 6 ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ ὃ 
προφήτης. All spirit-inspired utterances are not to be accepted 
as necessarily true. Πιστεύειν with the dative always means to 
accept as true, to believe in the truth of statements made by 
any one. Cf. Jn. viii. 31, πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ ᾿Ιουδαίους. 

ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε] Cf. τ Co. xii. το, ἄλλῳ δὲ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 
where the “discerning of spirits” is one of the recognized kinds 
of χαρίσματα. In the earlier generations the spiritual phenomena 
which accompanied the growth of Christianity were a cause of 
grave anxiety to all Christian leaders. It needed a special 
grace to distinguish between the true and the false. They 
might be delusions or impostures ; if real, they might be evil. 
Cf. 1 Th. v. 19-21, τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε' προφητείας μὴ 
ἐξουθενεῖτε. πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε. It would generally have been 
far easier to say, with the ἰδιώτης of Corinth, μαίνεσθες. The 
difficulty, which culminated in Montanism, is of periodic re- 
currence. But the writer reminds his hearers that the grace of 
discernment was part of the Christian endowment, if Christians 
were willing to use the χάρισμα which they possessed. Compare 
the passage quoted above from the Didache ; and, for the danger 
of yielding to the opposite temptation, compare the preceding 
sentences (xi. 7), καὶ πάντα προφήτην λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι ov 
πειράσετε οὐδὲ διακρινεῖτε᾽ πᾶσα γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφεθήσεται, αὕτη 
δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. Compare also xii. 1, πᾶς δὲ 6 
ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου δεχθήτω: ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες 
αὐτὸν γνώσεσθε; σύνεσιν γὰρ ἕξετε δεξιὰν καὶ ἀριστεράν. The 
plurals here cannot refer to an individual official. 

ὅτι πολλοὶ x.t.A.] The clause explains the necessity for the 
testing. The spirit of evil has sent forth his messengers into the 
world, and their activity is well known. 

ψευδοπροφῆται] Cf. Mt. vii. 15, προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδο- 
προφητῶν. Did. xi. 6. 

ἐξεληλύθασιν] Contrast the tense of ii. 19, where the definite 
fact of their separation from the Body of the Faithful is stated. 
Here the thought is of their sending forth by the Spirit who 
inspires them, and of the effect of their mission in the world. 
Here ὁ κόσμος is used in its natural sense of the world of men, 
and is not specially contrasted with the Christian Body. 


πιστευετεῖ πιστευητε 31 al.2S, 

Ta πνευματα] pr. παντα Α΄: παν wva 8 (Ψ), 
Tov] om, 15 624, 

eotiv] εἰσιν 70 5°07 (241), 


108 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [IV. 2. 


2. ᾽ν τόυτῳ] refers to what follows, according to the 
customary usage of this Epistle. 
᾿ς γινώσκετε] The word may be taken either as imperative or 
‘indicative. Αἱ first sight the use of the imperative in ver. 1 
would seem conclusive as to the interpretation of this verse. 
But an appeal to his readers’ knowledge and experience is more 
in accordance with the writer’s method. The aim of the whole 
Epistle is to remind them of what they already possess, and to 
base on it an appeal to them to make use of that which they 
have. In the Christian faith, as it has been taught to them 
from the beginning, they have adequate provision against the 
dangers to which they now find themselves exposed. _ All that 
is needed is that they should use what. they already possess. 
They must trust the powers with which the Christ has endowed 
them. Cf. ii. 29. Nowhere in the Epistle does the imperative 
follow ἐν τούτῳ : 11. 3, 5, iil. 16, 19, 24, iv. 13, V. 2. 

The reading γινώσκεται, which has passed into the Vulgate 
(cognoscitur), 1s an obvious corruption, the interchange of 
ai and ε being perhaps the commonest itacism in Greek manu- 
scripts. The direct appeal to his readers is far more congruous 
with the author’s style, and suits the context better. 

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ] Here only in the Johannine books. Cf. 
ver. 13, ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ. The vacillation between singular 
and plural, and the various genitives connected with πνεῦμα, may 
perhaps serve as indications that the doctrine of the Spirit is 
not yet clearly defined in precise terms. 

ὁμολογεῖ] The verb is used in the Johannine books with the 
following constructions: (1) absolutely, cf. Jn. 1. 20, xii. 42; 
(2) with ὅτι, cf. τ Jn. iv. 15; (3) with the single accusative, cf. 
I Jn. 1. 9 (τὰς ἁμαρτίας), 11. 23 (τὸν υἱόν), iv. 3 (Ἰησοῦν) ; (4) with 
the double accusative, cf. Jn. ix. 22, ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ 
Χριστόν. The construction of 2 Jn. 7, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, is parallel to this verse, and equally 
obscure. Three constructions are possible here. (1) Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστόν may be the object and ἐληλυθότα ἐν σαρκί the predicate. 
The confession of Jesus Christ as one who has come in the 
flesh is the test proposed. We may perhaps compare S. Paul’s 
test in 1 Co. xii. 3, οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν Κύριος Ἰησοῦς εἰ μὴ ἐν 
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. In favour of this construction is the natural 
connection which it gives of Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, which can hardly 
be separated unless the context clearly suggests their separation. 
(2) The form of ver. 3, according to the true text, is in favour 
of regarding Ἰησοῦν as object and the rest of the words as 
predicate. The error which the writer condemns seems to 
have been the rejection of the identity of the historical man 
Jesus with the pre-existent Christ, truly incarnate in His man- 


IV. 2.] NOTES ON I JOHN 109 


hood, in favour of the view that some higher power, as the 
Aeon Christ, descended upon the man Jesus at the Baptism, 
and left him before the Passion. There is nothing in the 
Epistle which compels us to suppose that the author is combat- 
ing pure Docetism, though, of course, such teaching would be 
excluded by the phrases used in these verses, in whatever way 
they are interpreted. The construction of Jn. ix. 22 may 
perhaps be urged as supporting this interpretation. And it 
probably emphasizes most clearly the view on which the writer 
wishes to lay stress. It is the denial of Jesus as the incarnate 
Christ which he regards as the source of all error, as the true 
text of ver. 3 (μὴ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν) shows. But so far as 
grammar and syntax are concerned this separation of Ἰησοῦν 
from Χριστόν, without anything in the context to necessitate it, 
or even to suggest it, is difficult. (3) The simplest construction 
is, therefore, that in which the whole phrase is regarded as con-, 
nected. The confession needed is of one who is Jesus Christ} 
incarnate, a man who lived on earth a true human life under) 
the normal conditions of humanity, and who is also the pre- ᾿ 
existent Christ who manifested God’s glory in this form. And 
the true text of ver. 3 favours this construction, if it is not 
regarded as too awkward. 

But whichever construction be adopted, the confession 
demanded is not of the truth of certain propositions about a 
certain person, but the confession of a Person, of whom certain 
propositions are true, who is possessed of the nature and 
qualities which they define. It is a confession not of the fact 
of the Incarnation, but of the Incarnate Christ. 

ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα] The phrase describes the method rather 
than the fact. The revelation of God was made to men by the 
Son of God appearing in human form and living a human life. 
It was given in a form which made it comprehensible to men, 
and its effects were abiding (ἐληλυθότα). Its whole validity 
depended on the Revealer being true man, who could speak to 
men as one of themselves. The guarantee for its completeness 
and its intelligibility was destroyed if the Revealer and the man 
were not one and the same. And the confession involved 
allegiance to the Person of the Revealer; without that men 
could not make the revelation their own. Von sonando, sed 
amando (Bede). 

The reading ἐληλυθέναι which is found in some important 
authorities is a natural correction of a difficult and somewhat 
awkward phrase. When Polycarp uses the passage he not 
unnaturally substitutes the infinitive for the participle. 
(Polycarp, ad Philipp. vi. 3f., ἀπεχόμενοι τῶν σκανδάλων καὶ τῶν 
ψευδαδέλφων καὶ τῶν ἐν ὑποκρίσει φερόντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου, 


110 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [τῦ. Ὁ: 5. 


οἵτινες ἀποπλανῶσι κενοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν), But it 
misses the point. ‘True confession is allegiance to a Person and 
not acceptance of a doctrinal statement. Only the spirits which 
inspire men to make such a confession are “οἵ God.” 


TouTw]-+ouv 72.358 (56), 

ywookere SCA BCL al. sat. mu. sah. syr? δαί Ir. Leif.] γινωσκε- 
ται Καὶ al. fere.© vg. syrs Cyr. Thphyl. Did. Aug. : γινώσκομεν &* 9. 14%. 
69 aS arm. cognoscemus boh-ed. : cognoscetis boh-codd. 

θεου 1°] +e¢ sperztum errors Sah. 

ο 15-- πνευμα 2°] om. 75 547-119 (200). 

Inoow Χριστον] Χριτον Τησουν C arm-codd. 

εἐληλυθοτα NAC ΚΙ, etc.] εληλυθεναι Β g9. Cf. Polycarp (? ver. 3) 
Thdrt. vg. Ir. Cyp. Or. Leif. Did. 


8. The simple accusative τὸν Ἰησοῦν is undoubtedly the true 
text. The variants Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, κύριον, ἐληλυθότα ἐν σαρκί 
are natural attempts to expand an abrupt phrase from the pre- 
ceding verse. The interesting variant λύει which is presupposed 
in several Patristic passages must be discussed separately. It is 
not the only instance of an explanatory gloss which has influenced 
the text of this Epistle. 

The shorter text emphasizes clearly the personal character of 
the confession (see the notes on the preceding verse). And it 
lays the right stress on the danger which threatened the readers 
of listening to those who undervalued the importance of the 
human life and personality of Jesus of Nazareth. 

τοῦτο] The denial of Jesus. 

τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου] Either the Spirit which comes from Anti- 
christ, or more probably the special characteristic of Antichrist. 
The work of Antichrist was already being done in the world. 

ὃ ἀκηκόατε] Cf. 11. 18, ἠκούσατε ὅτι ᾿Αντίχριστος ἔρχεται. The 
“ coming” of Antichrist formed part of common Jewish expecta- 
tion and Christian teaching. The readers had been taught what 
to expect, and ought to find no difficulty in detecting its 
beginnings among them. 

ἤδη] Cf. Jn. iv. 35, ὅτι λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμὸν ἤδη, and ix. 
27, εἶπον ὑμῖν ἤδη. With these three exceptions, of which iv. 35 
is doubtful, the Johannine use of ἤδη is to qualify the words 
which follow. 


πνευμα (ὃ 1°)] om. A? (33) 15 10. 65. 172 (505) | 0 (? 1°) αν 7. 70 (505) | 
μη] om. 7° 6? (491). 

0 μὴ ομολογει] Aver vg. (soluzt) Ir. Or. Aug. Fulg. cdd. uet. op. Socr. 
Cf. Lif. Tert. 

τον insouww A Bh 13. 27. 29. 69 aS cddet ap. Socrat. Cyr. Thdt. vg. 
fu. harl. tol. syr“t boh-ed. arm-cod. aeth. Ir. Or. Leif. Did.] encour 
κυριον &: Tov ιησουν χριστον L al. plu. boh-codd. cat. Oec.: tov xi w 
J 192. §254. §454 (318) Je 364-208. 6299 (137): inoouv χριστον K al. plus*® Polyc. 


IV. 3.] NOTES ON I JOHN III 


Thyphl. am. demid. sah, arm-ed. Aug. Tert.:+ev capkt εληλυθοτα & K L 
al. pler. cat. syr"t arm. Thphyl. Oec. Tert. (wenzsse) Cyp.:+ev σαρκι 
ἐληλυθεναι H 548 (33) Ampc (XK) Polyc. 

τον] xv 7. 487 (—), 

ex] om. K L ks al. plus?® cat. 

τουτο--ο 2°] hic est Antichristus quem sah. boh. arm. 

To] om. / 6703. 254 (295) Av 6364 (51) | tov 2°] om, /* 764 (233). 

0 20] τὶ N5. 6. 39. 100: ov H  (), 

ακηκοατε] axnkoapev H 8? () 25 848-178 (5), 


The evidence for the reading Avec=so/wit in this verse is 
mainly Latin ; before von der Goltz’s discovery, described below, 
it was almost exclusively so. The statements of Clement, 
Origen, and Socrates are most naturally explained as proving the 
existence of such a reading in Greek. Taking the evidence 
roughly in chronological order, we must notice first that of 
Irenaeus, though it is unfortunately only preserved in a Latin 
dress. In iii. τό. 8 (Massuet, 207), Irenaeus is denouncing 
the Gnostics who distinguish between Jesus, the Christ, the 
Only-begotten, the Saviour. He accuses them of making many 
Gods, and Fathers many, and of dividing up the Son of God. 
The Lord warns us to beware of such, and John, His disciple, in 
his afore-mentioned Epistle says, ‘“‘ Multi seductores exierunt 
in hunc mundum qui non confitentur Iesum Christum in carne 
uenisse. Hic est seductor et Antichristus. Videte eos, ne 
perdatis quod operati estis (2 Jn. 7, 8). Et rursus in epistola 
ait: Multi pseudoprophetae exierunt de saeculo. In hoc 
cognoscite spiritum Dei. Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Iesum 
Christum in carne uenisse, ex Deo est. Et omnis spiritus qui 
soluit Iesum, non est ex Deo, sed de Antichristo est.” The 
actual reading, “‘ qui soluit Iesum,” may be due to the Latin 
translator; but it must be noticed that it suits the preceding 
words of Irenaeus, comminuens autem et per multa diuidens 
filium Dei, so much better than the common reading μὴ 
ὁμολογεῖ (non confitetur), that it is more natural to suppose that” 
Irenaeus had in his Greek text either λύει or some equivalent 
phrase, unless his translator has very freely paraphrased the 
whole passage to bring it into agreement with the text of the 
Epistle with which he was acquainted. (See, however, Westcott, 
P- 157.) 

The evidence of Clement of Alexandria was also available 
only through Latin sources. The Latin summary of his 
Hypotyposes has no equivalent for this passage; but in the 
summary of the Second Epistle we find, ‘‘Adstruit in hac 
epistola perfectionem fidei extra caritatem non esse, et ut 
nemo diuidat Iesum Christum, sed unum credat Iesum 
Christum uenisse in carne,” words which do not go far towards 
proving that Clement knew of the reading Ave in Greek, but 


112 THE EPISTLES OF 5, JOHN [Iv. 3. 


when taken in connection with two passages in Origen suggest 
the possibility that the reading was known at Alexandria in 
Clement’s time. 

In the Latin version of Origen’s Commentary on S. Matthew, 
§ 65, the reading “‘soluit Jesum” is found. The passage is an 
explanation of the parable, Mt. xxiv. 14. The man who went on 
a journey being naturally identified with the Lord, Origen raises 
the difficulty, “‘ How can He be said to go on a journey who 
promised that where two or three are gathered together in His 
name, He will be in their midst?” He finds a solution of the 
difficulty which he has raised in the distinction between the 
Lord’s divine and human natures. ‘‘Secundum hanc divinitatis 
suae naturam non peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum 
dispensationem corporis quod suscepit.” He adds other 
instances of statements which must be referred to His human 
nature, and then adds, ‘‘Haec autem dicentes non soluimus 
suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud Joannem 
‘Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo’ sed unicuique 
substantiae proprietatem seruamus.” ‘The whole argument is so 
thoroughly in Origen’s style, that we should hestitate to attribute 
the quotation of the verse in this form to the Translator, though 
we cannot be certain that Origen read Ave in his Greek text. 
The passage has been quoted frequently, but it is curious that 
another passage in the part of his Commentary on S. Matthew 
which is extant in Greek has been generally overlooked. I had 
noted the passage several years ago, but have seen no reference 
to it earlier than Dr. Zahn’s Jxtroduction. In xvi. 8, Origen is 
commenting on the words δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ 
πολλῶν. He notices that the ψυχή is given as the λύτρον, not the 
πνεῦμα nor the σῶμα. He adds the caution that in saying this he 
has no wish to disparage the ψυχή of Jesus, but wishes only to 
insist on the exact statement made. And he adds, Πλὴν σήμερον 
οὐ λύω τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλὰ πολλῷ πλέον οἶδα ev 
εἶναι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν. The passage may only be an echo of 
such expressions as are found, e.g., in Irenaeus 111, xii. 7, “ Qui 
autem Jesum separant a Christo.” But a comparison of these 
two passages in the same Commentary certainly leave the 
impression that the reading λύει was known to Origen. The 
matter is determined if the Scholion is correct which is found in 
the Athos MS, containing information about Origen’s text which 
von der Goltz has described in Zexte und Untersuchungen, N. F. 
ii. 4. The Scholion, which is quoted on p. 48 of von der Goltz’s 
work, is as follows: ὃ λύει τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. Οὕτως ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐν τῷ 
τρίτῳ κατὰ τὰς αἱρέσεις λόγῳ καὶ Ὠριγενὴς ἐν τῷ η΄ τόμῳ τῶν εἰς 
τὸν πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐξηγητικῶν καὶ Κλήμης 6 Στρωματεὺς ἐν τῷ περὶ 
τοῦ πάσχα λόγῳ: Von der Goltz points out that the 8th Book of 


IV. 3.] NOTES ON I JOHN 113 


Origen’s Commentary would seem to have contained his exposi- 
tion of Ro. v. 17-vi. τό, and in Rufinus’ translation (v. 8; Lomm. 
p. 386) τ Jn. iv. 2 is quoted, so that it is not unlikely that in the 
original Greek the quotation included the third verse with the 
reading Ave. Thus, if we may trust the evidence of the 
Scholion, and there are no good grounds for not doing so, in 
the three instances where extant Latin evidence suggested that 
the reading was known to Greek writers, we have now definite 
evidence that it was found in their Greek text. 

The only other Greek evidence for the reading is the well- 
known passage of Socrates about Nestorius (27. £. vii. 32), αὐτίκα 
γοῦν ἠγνόησεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ Ιωάννου γέγραπτο ἐν τοῖς 
παλαίοις ἀντιγράφοις ὅτι πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι. ταύτην γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων 
περιεῖλον οἱ χωρίζειν ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀνθρώπου βουλόμενοι 
τὴν θεότητα" διὸ καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἑρμηνεῖς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπεσημήναντο, ὥς 
τινες εἶεν ῥαδιουργήσαντες τὴν ἐπιστολήν, λύειν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον θέλοντες. Again this language may be “satisfied by the 
supposition that he was acquainted with the Latin reading and 
some Latin commentary” (Westcott, p. 157). But this can 
hardly be called the most natural interpretation of his words. 

The evidence of Tertullian and Augustine points to the early 
existence of the phrase in connection with the passages in 
the Johannine Epistles, though it is not always certain whether 
this passage or the similar words in the Second Epistle are 
referred to. ‘The most important passage is adv. Marc. v. 16, 
*‘ Johannes dicit processisse in mundum praecursores Antichristi 
spiritus, negantes Christum in carne uenisse et soluentes Iesum.” 
Augustine in a somewhat different manner appears to comment 
on both readings. After explaining the words “qui non 
confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse” by the suggestion 
that the denial is to be found in the want of love which divides 
the Church, he continues, “adeo ut noueritis quia ad facta retulit 
et omnis spiritus, ait, qui soluit Iesum.” Later on he has 
*soluis Iesum et negas in carne uenisse.” The natural ex- 
planation of his treatment of the passage is that in his text the 
words “qui soluit Jesum, non est ex Deo” (the addition of “in 
carne uenisse” after “‘ Iesum” in Migne must be an error) followed 
the clause “qui non confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse.” 
There are other instances of supplementary glosses in Augustine’s 
text of this Epistle. The quotation in the Zestimonia of Cyprian 
(ii. 8), Omnis spiritus qui confitetur _Iesum Christum in carne 
uenisse, de Deo est, qui autem negat in carne uenisse, de Deo 
non est, sed est de Antichristi spiritu,” shows that the reading 
“soluit” was not found in the earliest form of the old Latin text, 
in spite of its presence in all Latin MSS except Codex Frisianus. 

8 


114 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN jav. 3, 4. 


On the whole, then, the Latin evidence points to the probability 
that this reading crept into the Latin texts at an early date, 
being first introduced as an explanatory gloss, which sub- 
sequently displaced the reading it was inserted to explain. 
The history of its appearance in Greek authorities is still obscure, 
but may perhaps be explained in the same way. 

And the internal evidence points in the same direction. It 
is far easier to explain ὃ λύει as an attempt to emphasize the 
bearing of the verse on the heretical views of the ‘‘ Separators,” 
than zce versa. As Wurm has acutely observed, the reading ὃ 
μὴ ὁμολογεῖ, etc., could only have been introduced as an ex- 
planatory gloss on ὃ λύει at a time when the meaning of this 
phrase had been forgotten. But it is certainly found during the 
period when the reading “qui soluit” could cause no difficulty 
and was perfectly well understood. Neither reading can be 
later than Irenaeus, and at that date there could have been no 
motive for the alteration of Ave if it had been the original 
reading. On the other hand, the correction of μὴ ὁμολογεῖ into 
λύει would give special point to the passage as a condemnation 
of a particular form of heresy, which at that time had to be 
combated. 

2. iv. 4-6. Attitude of the Church and the world towards 
this confession. 

4-6. If they are true to themselves the readers have nothing 
to fear from the activities of the Antichristian spirits at work in 
the world. In virtue of the new birth, which as Christians they 
have experienced, they have gained the victory over the false 
prophets, and the fruits of the victory are theirs, unless they 
deliberately forfeit them. The victory was not gained in their 
own strength. It was God who fought for them and in them. 
And God is greater than the devil who rules in the world. The 
false prophets are essentially “‘of the world.” All that dominates 
their life and action comes fromit. Their teaching is derived 
from its wisdom, not from the revelation which God has given 
in His Son. And so their message is welcomed by those who 
belong to the world. For like associates with like. The writer 
and his fellow-teachers are conscious that they derive their true 
life from God. And those who are of God, and therefore live 
their lives in learning to know Him better, in the gradual 
assimilation of the revelation of Himself which God is making 
in His Son, receive the message. It is only rejected by those 
who are not of God, and so are not learning to know Him. 
Thus from the character of those who welcome their respective 
messages we learn to recognize and distinguish the spirit of 
truth and the spirit of falsehood. 

4. ὑμεῖς] The readers, whom he has instructed in the Faith, 


IV. 4-6.] NOTES ON I JOHN ΓΙῸ 


and whom he naturally addresses as his ‘‘little children,” using 
the privileges of age and position when he wishes to speak em- 
phatically, in words either of warning or of exhortation. Cf. 
li. I, 12, 28, ill. 7, 18, v. 21. The emphatic pronoun separates 
the readers from the false teachers. 

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστέ] Cf. Jn. viii. 23, xvii. 14, 16; τ Jn. ili. το, v. 
19, il. 19. By the phrase εἶναι ἐκ the writer seems to denote 
more than merely “belonging to.” It suggests primarily spiritual 
dependence. A man is said to be “of God,” “οἵ the Devil,” 
who draws all his inspiration, all that dominates and regulates 
his thought and action, from the sources out of which he is said 
to be. Etva: ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ denotes especially the state of those 
who have experienced the spiritual regeneration which is the 
true note of the Christian, and who are true to their experience. 
Εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου is the state of those who still, whether 
nominally Christian or not, draw their guidance from human 
society, considered as an ordered whole, apart from God. 

νενικήκατε] by remaining true to the Christianity which they 
had been taught ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, rather than by the expulsion of the 
false prophets (αὐτούς) from the community. 

ὅτι] There was no cause for boasting of their victory. It 
was God who worked in them, as the Devil worked and ruled in 
the world. Voli te extollere. Vide quis in te vicit (Aug.). 


upets] pr. καὶ 75 1 (505): pr. ort 7} 47% 161 (372) | ex] f/i7 sah, 

ἐστε] nati est?s Sah | rexvia] τέκνα 31 cS al, pauc. :om. boh-sah, 

verixnxate] evixnoare L214 (335) | ὑμιν] nuw 7515 (394) ο 2°] om, 
75 883, 8254 (231) | ev Tw κοσμω] εκ Tou κοσμου 7 3071} (96) 2} 62-4161 (767), 


5. ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσίν] See the notes on ver. 4. The false 
teaching drew its strength from the wider knowledge of the world, 
rejecting or failing to appreciate the essential truth of the 
revelation made in Jesus Christ incarnate. 

ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσιν] Their teaching corresponds to their 
sphere. And it is welcomed by the like-minded. 

ἀκούει] Cf. Oecumenius, τῷ yap ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον προστρέχει. 
There was apparently need of encouragement in view of the 
success which the false teachers had secured. Cf. again 
Oecumenius, εἰκὸς γάρ twas τούτων καὶ ἀσχάλλειν. δρῶντας 
ἐκείνους μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς περισπουδάστους, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ καταφρονου- 
μένους. 

δια τουτο] pr. Kat 69 aS: και 68. 103 Did. 


Aadovowv] om. 7} 85 (498). 
axovet αὐτον (?) 0 κοσμος 75 © (317), 


6. ἡμεῖς] The contrast with ὑμεῖς (ver. 5) suggests that the 
teachers and not the whole body of Christians are meant. 
They know whence they draw the inspiration of their life and 


116 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [IV. 6. 


work. And they will be recognized by those who have begun to 
live the eternal life which consists in knowing God and His 
messenger (cf. Jn. xvii. 3). 

ὃ γινώσκων τὸν θεόν] The phrase is used as_ practically 
equivalent to εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, but it emphasizes one particular 
point in the continual progress made by those who “are of God,” 
viz. the knowledge of Him which comes from experience of life 
in fellowship with Him. 

ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν κιτιλ.] They cannot know or welcome the truth, 
because the principles which guide their thoughts are not 
derived from the truth. 

ἐκ τούτου] Cf. Jn. vi. 66, xix. 12, in neither of which verses 
is the meaning exclusively temporal. The phrase is not used 
again in the Epistle, or in the Johannine writings, with γινώσκειν. 
As compared with ἐν τούτῳ it may perhaps suggest a criterion 
which is less obvious, and which lies further away from that 
which it may be used to test. The character of their confession 
offers an immediate test of the spirits. It requires a longer process 
of intelligent observation to determine the character of the recep- 
tion with which the message meets. The “test” here is the fact 
that the one message is welcomed by those who are of God and 
know God, the other only by those who are of the world. Cf. 
[ay χν: τὸ: 

γινώσκομεν] The preceding ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν make it natural 
to refer this to the teachers, and grammatically this is no doubt 
the more correct interpretation. But when the writer is medi- 
tating, rather than pursuing a course of logically developed 
thought, his meditation is apt to pass out into wider spheres, 
and it is more than probable that he now includes in the first 
person plural the whole body of those whom he is addressing, 
as well as the teachers, with whom he began by associating 
himself. 

τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας κιτιλ.] The Spirit of God, of which 
the essential characteristic is truth, and the spirit of the Devil, 
or of Antichrist, which is characterized by falsehood, the active 
talsehood which leads men astray (πλάνης). 

o] pr. καὶ /°°58* (56). 

os... ἥμων 25 δὲ B Καὶ al. pler. vg. etc.] om. A La 3. 142. 177%. 
os] pr. καὶ 79 864 (137), 

εκ τουτου] ev TouTw A vg. sah. cop. 

mia (Ὁ 1°, 2°)] mpa 15 205-261 (τ 1), 

C. iv. 7-ν. 12. 

Third presentation of the ethical and Christological theses. 
They are not only shown to be connected (as in &), but the 
proof of their inseparability is given. Love is the basis of our 
knowledge of fellowship with God, because God is love. And 


EV: 7 NOTES ON I JOHN 117 


this love of God is manifested in the sending of His Son, as 
faith comprehends it. So the two main thoughts of the Epistle, 
Faith in Jesus Christ and“bove-of the Bréthren, are intertwined 
in this passage, which may be divided into two sections. ~~ 
—¥-tv-- 7-21 First meditation on the two thoughts now com- 
bined. Love based on faith in the revelation of Love which 
has been given, the test of our knowledge of God and of our 
birth from God. 

II. v. 1-12. Faith as the ground of love. 

I. τ. iv. 7-12. Love based on the Revelation of Love. 

(a) 7-10. The writer grounds an appeal to his ‘‘ beloved” 
hearers for mutual love on the true nature of love as manifested 
in the Incarnation. ‘True love is not merely a quality of nature, 
and on that analogy included in our conception of the Deity. 
It has its origin in God. Human_-love is a reflection of some- 
thing in the Divine nature itself. Its presence in men shows 
tliat they have experienced the new birth from God and share in 
that higher life which consists in gradually becoming acquainted 
with God. Where love is absent there has not been even the 
beginning of the knowledge of God, for love is the very nature 
and being of God. And God’s love has been manifested 
in us. God sent His only-begotten Son, in whom His wholé 
nature is reproduced; who aloné can fully reveal it to men, into 
the world of men with a special purpose. That purpose was 
to enable men to share the higher spiritual life which He im- 
parts (ἵνα ζήσωμεν δ αὐτοῦ). The nature of true love is mani- 
fested in those who have begun to'share that life. True love 
is something which gives itself, neither in return for what has 
‘been given nor in order to get as much again: even as God 
gave His Son, not as a reward for the love which men had 
showed to Him, but asa boon to those who had only mani- 
fested their hostility to Him, in order to remove the obstacles 
which intervened between God and men. 

7. ἀγαπητοί] One of the writer’s favourite words. It occurs 
ten times in the Epistles, though not in the Gospel. It is his 
usual method of address when he wishes to appeal to the better 
thoughts and feelings of his readers, or, to use S. Paul’s phrase, 
to “open the eyes of their hearts.” It emphasizes the natural 
grounds of appeal for mutual love, which can most readily be 
called out among those who are loved or lovable. 

ἣ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν] The whole of the Biblical revela- 
tion of God emphasizes the fact that man is made in the image 
of God, not God in the image of man, however much our con- 
ceptions of God are necessarily conditioned by human limita- 
tions. It suggests that whatever is best in man is the reflection, 
under the limitations of finite human existence, of something 


-- ΒΡ. 


118 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN (IV. 7, 8. 


in the nature of God. The true nature of love cannot be 
appreciated unless it is recognized that its origin must be 
sought beyond human nature. We may compare the doctrine 
of ‘‘ Fatherhood” insisted upon in Eph. iii. 15. 

πᾶς ὃ ἀγαπῶν] It is generally recognized that love is here 
presented, not as the cause of the new birth from God or of 
the knowledge of God, but as their effect. The presence of 
love is the test by which the reality of their presence in any 
man may be known. The discussion of the question whether 
the writer intends to present the relation of the being born of 
God to the knowledge of God as one of cause and effect, or 
of effect and cause, is perhaps idle. He who loves. shows 
thereby that he has experienced the new birth from God which 
is the beginning of Christian life, and that its“effects are per- 
manent and abiding. He also shows that he has entered upon 
that life which consists in the gradual acquiring of the know- 
ledge of God. Whether this process of acquiring knowledge 
begins before, and leads to, the new birth, or only begins after 
that has been experienced ‘and is its consequence, is not stated. 
The question was probably not present to the writer’s-mind: 

ἢ ayamn] post εστιν 78 115 (310), 

του (? J°)Jom. 7.116 (--}. 

ο αὙαπων͵] τον θεὸν A:+fratrem demid. tol. Fulg.:+fratrem suum. 

Did. : cf. omnes gui diligunt se tnuicem sah, 
και 1°—(8) ἐστιν] om. syr?. 
yeyevynrat] γεγενηται 99. 177". 180 js 156 Dam, 


8. The negative counterpart of ver. 7, the statement being 
made, as usual, with a slight difference. 

οὐκ ἔγνω] He shows by his want of love that the process of 
knowledge never even began in him. 

ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν] Love 15. not merely an attribute of 
God, it is His very Nature_and Being; or rather, the word 
expresses the highest conception which we can form of that | 
Nature. Holtzmann’s note is worth quoting. ‘‘ Even the false | 
gnosis realized that God is light and spirit. But when here and 
in ver. 16 love is put forward as the truest presentation of God, 
this is the highest expression of the conception of God. It 
passes entirely beyond the limitations of natural religion. It 
does not come within the category of Substance, but only those 
of Power and Activity. It opens the way for an altogether new 
presentation of religion based on the facts of moral life.” 


ο 1°—feov] post ἐστιν syrs>; om. N* 192 ds arm-cdd. aeth.: ὁ μὴ 
αγαπων οὐκ eyvwKev δ΄, 

Ὁ 1°] pr. ort 7 τ 10252) Ὁ δὲ 7°58 (56). 

οὐκ ΕὙνω] om. εγνωκεν N° 31: οὐ γινωσκει A 3. 5. 13 al.4 arm. Or. cf. 
Leif. Did. Fulg. : mon cognosczt sah. 


IV. 9, 10.] NOTES ON I JOHN 119 


9. ἐν τούτῳ] The true nature of God’s love has now been 
shown, in a way which men can understand and appreciate, in 
the fact and the purpose of the Incarnation. God gave His 
best, that men might be enabled to live the life of God. 

ἐν ἡμῖν] Not “among us,” still less “to us.” If the writer had 
meant “God’s love to us,” he would doubtless have used the 
Greek words which would convey that meaning, 7 ἀγάπη τοῦ 
θεοῦ (7) εἰς ἡμᾶς. The preposition has its full force. God sent 
His Son that men might live. The manifestation of His love 
is made zz those who have entered upon the life which He sent 
His Son to give. 

τὸν μονογενῆ] The idea presented by μονογενής in the Johan- 
nine books would seem to be that of the one and only Son 
who completely reproduces the nature and character of His 
Father, which is concentrated in one, and is not, so to speak, 
divided up among many brethren. It emphasizes the complete- 
ness of the revelation of God which He is able to give, as well 
as the uniqueness of the gift. 

ἵνα ζήσωμεν] Cf. the note on ἐν ἡμῖν. The love was mani- 
fested in a definite act with a definite object. 

ev, ΤΟ] pr. Καὶ ore 72 20% Dt ΜᾺ [851] 7) 18: 101 [--ν or. καὶ 7.5. (335). 
του θεου] eczus arm-codd, 

ev nuw] om. 7} 758-559 (2), 

αἀπεσταλκεν απεστειλεν K 29, 38. 42. 57 al. plus!? Ath, 

o Geos] om. 15. 18. 25. 98. 100 al.° arm. aeth. Aug. 

Snowper] ζωμεν &*. 


10. True love is selfless. It is not_a mere response. It 
gives itself. The sending of God’s Son was not_the answer of 
God to something in man. It_was the outcome of the very 
Nature of God: Cf Odes of Solomon, iii. 3, 4, “I should not 
have»known how to love the Lord, if He had not loved me. 
For who is able to distinguish love, except the one that is 
loved?” 

ἵἱλασμόν] Cf. ii. 2. God could not give Himself while men’s 
sins formed a barrier between them and Him. ‘True love must 
sweep away the hindrances to the fulfilment of the law of its 
being. While Vulg. has Arofpitiatio, Aug. has “itator, and Lucif. 
expiator, emphasizing the fact that that which reconciles is a 
person. 


ἡ ἀγαπη]-" του θεου & sah. cop. 

ἡγαπησαμεν] ηγαπηκαμεν B | ηγαπησεν] pr. mpwros K 5°84 (51), 
avros] exevos A: pr. Deus sah, 

αἀπεστειλεν] απεσταλκεν ἐξ. 

mept| ὑπὲρ 750 (83): om, 7. 113 (252), 


(4) 11, 12. Love of the Brethren the test of Fellowship. 
In the light of such a manifestation of God’s love there can 


120 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [Iv. 11, 12. 


be no question about the obligation to mutual love among those 
who have experienced it. True knowledge always finds expres- 
sion in action. ‘The true nature of God cannot be made visible 
to the eye. His presence cannot beseen. But it is known in its 
results. Where love is, there we know that God abides in men. 
His abiding in men is the most complete expression of His love. 

11. ἀγαπητοί] Cf. ver. 7. The loving address is here used 
for the sixth and last time. 

οὕτως] Cf. Jn. iii. 16, of which this verse seems to be an echo. 
Οὕτως defines the way in which God manifested the true nature 
of love, by giving His Son. 

kat ἡμεῖς] The writer and his readers, or more generally the 
Christian Family, those who have experienced and appropriated 
the revelation of love. Those who have learned the true 
character of love are under the strongest obligation to carry out, 
in such spheres as they can, the lesson which they have learned. 
The proper result of divine birth is divine activity. 


0 Beos] post ἡμᾶς 10 3581. 559. 8152. §260 (2), 
οφείλομεν καὶ ἡμεις 75 543-173 (5), 


12. θεὸν κιτ.λ.1 Cf. Jn. i. 18, where the order of the first two 
words is the same. The absence of the article throws the 
emphasis on the nature and character of God. As He is in His 
true nature He cannot be made visible to the eyes of men, so 
that they can grasp the meaning of what they see (θεᾶσθαι, 
contrast the ἑώρακεν of the Gospel, which merely states the fact). 

᾿ὰν κιτιλ.] What cannot be seen can be known by its fruits. 
Mutual love is a sign of the indwelling of God in men. 
“‘Through our love for each other (as Christians) we build the 
Temple, in which God can dwell in and among us” (Rothe). 
His love for men receives its most perfect expression in His 
giving Himself to men, and entering into fellowship with them. 

αὐτοῦ] There is the usual division of opinion as to whether 
the genitive is subjective or objective, or whether the two 
meanings are to be combined, the love which comes from God 
and which He causes to exist in men. The context on the 
whole favours the view that it should be taken as subjective. 
God’s love to men is realized most fully in His condescending 
to abide in men... Cf. ver. 9, ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη Tod θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν. 

12. Oeov] pr. αδελῴοι 75 17 (303), 
TETEAELWMEVN] PY. τετελείωται καὶ 13: post ἡμῖν A 5. 13. 31. 68. 69 ase 

vg. Thphyl. : perfecta erit sah4, 

ev ἡμιν] post ἐστιν K Lal. pler. cat. sah. cop. syr** arm. aeth. Oec. Aug. 


13-16a. Proofs of Fellowship. The gift of the Spirit. The 
witness of those who actually saw the manifestation of love in 
the Life of Jesus. By means of the Spirit, of which He has 


IV. 18-15.] NOTES ON I JOHN 121 


given us, we are conscious that fellowship between Him and 
us really exists. Furthermore, the great proof of His love, the 
sending of His Son as Saviour of the world; rests on certain 
witness. We who lived with Him on earth, and have seen and 
understood the meaning of what we saw, can bear true witness, 
All who accept the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, who lived on 
earth as a man among men, is the Son of God, and who mould 
their lives in accordance with this confession, are in true fellow- 
ship with God. And we who saw Him have learned to know 
and to believe the love which God has for us, and shows in us. 
18. The writer passes from the facts to Christian conscious- 

ness of the facts. We are assured that fellowship between God 
and us really exists, because He has given us of His Spirit, and the 
effects of His gifts are permanent. Cf. Π|. 24, where the same 
conclusion is reached. For the use of the preposition, cf. Mt. 
xxv. 28, δότε ἡμῖν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαίου ὑμῶν. For the general arrange- 
ment of the matter, cf. 1 Jn. il. 5, 6. 

μενομεν7-Ἐ και ἡμεις 13. 

avros]+est 5. manet sah. boh, :+(?) ο θεος 75 158. (305). 

mis] mps O* (154). 

δεδωκεν NBKL al. plur. cat. Ath. Cyr.] εδωκεν 13. 27. 29 cS Ath. 

Bas. Cyr. 


14. Beside the internal witness of the Spirit, there is also the 
external witness of those who saw the great proof of God’s love. 
Their vision was complete, and lasting in its results. The 
testimony, therefore, which they bear is sure. 

ἡμεῖς] The word must here refer to the actual eye-witnesses 
of the life of Jesus on earth. The exaggeration of the view 
which finds “the αὐτόπται of the Province”! in each use of the 
first person plural of the pronoun in the Epistle, should not be 
allowed to obscure the natural meaning of certain expressions 
which it contains; cf. 1 Jn. 1. τ. The verb looks back to 
ver. 12: ‘God Himself no one has ever yet beheld; but we 
have beheld His Son. 

σωτῆρα] Cf. Jn. iv. 42, οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς 6 σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. 
The purpose of the mission was to restore the fellowship which 
had been gradually forfeited. 

τεθεαμεθα & BK Lal. longe. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec.] εθεασαμεθα A 27. 
29. 33. 34. 66**. 68. 98 al. aliq. Cyr. 
μαρτυρουμεν testat? sumus sah. 


αἀπεσταλκεν] απεστειλεν 75 38%68ff (06) 7} 78-157 ( —) 046 (154), 
νιον] αυτου 7. 364. 259 (137). 


15. ὁμολογήσῃ] Cf. iv. 2 and notes. The confession is stated 
variously ; cf. iv. 2; 2 Jn. 7, and the various confessions in the 
Gospel. The essential point seems to be the identity of Jesus, 


1 Cf. Holtzmann on 3 Jn. 9. 


122 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [Iv. 15, 16a. 


the man who lived on earth a human life, with the Son of God, 
who as only-begotten Son of His Father could reveal the Father 
to men. In the thought of the writer no other conditions could 
assure the validity of the revelation and the possibility of its 
comprehension by man. He who “confesses” this, ze. makes 
this belief the guiding principle of his life and action, is assured 
of the truth of his fellowship with God. Thus the work of the 
original witnesses is continued in the “confession” of those who 
‘have not seen and yet have believed.” Such a confession is 
as sure a test of Divine fellowship as “mutual love.” As it 
cannot be true unless it issues in such mutual love, it is difficult 
to distinguish the two. The writer probably puts it forward 
rather for its value as an objective sign to others, than for its 
power of giving assurance to him who makes it. In the 
Christian community there is external as well as internal 
assurance to be found by those who look for it. 

16a. καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν] If, as seems 
probable, the first person plural still refers to the writer and 
other teachers who, like him, had seen the Lord on earth, he is 
thinking of his early experiences in Galilee or Jerusalem, when 
growing acquaintance passed into assured faith, which had never 
since been lost. Contrast the order in the confession of S. Peter, 
Jn. vi. 69. The growth of knowledge and the growth of faith 
act and react on each other. 

ἐν ἡμῖν] The love which God has for men is manifested in 
those who respond to it, in whom it issues in higher life. But 
perhaps it is safer to regard the preposition as a trace of the 
influence of Aramaic forms of expression on the writer’s style. 


omoroynon] ομολογηὴ A 5 | eyoous] κξ 18 1 (40): xs Ks 18 382 (231): 
Ἔχριστος Bm. arm-codd. Cf. Tert. 

autos] outros 75 547-110 (209) : + est 5. manet boh. sah. 

πεπιστευκαμεν καὶ εγνωκαμεν ATM, | πεπιστευκαμεν] πιστευομεν A 
13 am. tol. cop. 

την ayarnv|+ Dez am.* arm. 

exer] exxev 1756 (Ψ). 

ev μιν} μεθ nuwy 75 ϑϑτετη, 8157 (96), 


16b-21. Love and Faith in relation to Judgment. The 
nature of true love. 

Since God is love, he who abides in love abides in God 
and God in him. Thus the test of love can give full assurance 
with regard to the reality of our fellowship with God. It is a 
logical deduction from the very nature of God. Love has been 
made perfect in us when, and only when, we can look forward 
with entire confidence to the great day of God’s judgment, 
knowing that as the exalted Christ abides in the Father’s love, 
so we abide in it so far as that is possible under the conditions 


IV. 16b, 17.] NOTES ON I JOHN 123 


of our present existence. Where full confidence is not yet 
possible, love is not yet made perfect, for fear and dread have no 
place in true love. It drives them out completely from the 
sphere of its activity. For fear has in itself something of the 
nature of punishment, and he who experiences it has not yet 
been made perfect in love. How then can we say that we have 
love? Because our love, in whatever degree we possess it as yet, 
has its origin in something that is above and beyond us. It has 
its origin in God. It is called out in response to the love which 
God has for us. But our claim to love can be put to an obvious 
test. Love is active, and must, if it is real, go forth to those who 
need it. If any one claims to love God and does not show love 
to his brethren, his claim is not only false, but reveals a falseness 
of character. Love will show itself wherever an object of love is 
to be found. He who will not take even the first step can never 
reach the goal. If the sight of his brother does not call out his 
love, the fact shows that he cannot have love enough to reach 
as faras God. And for us the matter is determined, once for 
all, by the Master’s command. He has said, “The first com- 
mandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. And the 
second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” 

16b. 6 θεὸς κιτιλ.] Cf. ver. 8, where love is shown to be the 
necessary condition of knowledge of God. Here it is presented 
as the necessary condition of fellowship. 

ὃ μένων κιτ.λ.] Cf. ver. 12, where the writer emphasizes the 
fact that God’s love for men is shown most completely in His 
willingness to “abide” in us. Here the emphasis is laid on the 
mutual character of the intercourse, ἐν τῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ 6 θεὸς ἐν 
αὐτῷ, and especially on the human side. By abiding in love, the 
Christian realizes the divine fellowship. 


και 4°—pever 2°] om. Syrs* | ο 4°] om. HS (}4)--- μένει 29 ἃ BK L al. 
fere.” sah. cop. syr? arm. Cyp. Aug.] om. A al. sat. mul. cat. vg. aeth. 
Thphyl. Oec. Cyp. 


17. ἐν τούτῳ «.t..] Two interpretations of this verse are 
possible, according as the words refer to what precedes or to 
what follows. Ἔν τούτῳ may recapitulate the clause ἐν τῷ bed 
μένει καὶ ὃ θεὸς ἐν airs. Love finds its consummation in the 
realization of this mutual fellowship. But it would be truer to 
say that love is made perfect, not in fellowship generally, but in 
perfect fellowship; and this is hardly expressed by the words. 
And in the general usage of the author ἐν τούτῳ refers to what 
follows, whenever the sentence contains a clause which allows 
of such a reference. Such clauses are either added without 
connecting particle, or are introduced by ὅτι, ἐάν, or ὅταν. 
There is no certain instance of the construction ἐν τούτῳ iva, 


124 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN {Iv. 17, 18. 


But Jn. xv. 8 should probably be interpreted in this way (ev 
τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὁ πατήρ μου, iva. καρπὸν πολὺν φέρητε). And the 
writer’s use of the purely definitive ἵνα is so well established that 
such a construction causes no difficulty. If év rovrw refers to the 
clause introduced by ἵνα the meaning will be that love is made 
perfect in full confidence, It has been perfectly realized only by 
those who can look forward with sure confidence to the judgment 
of the Great Day. Such confidence is the sign of perfect love. 
The thought is developed further in ver. 18. Cf. also 11. 28. 

παρρησίαν] See the note on ii. 28. 

μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] As contrasted with ἐν ἡμῖν (&) it is possible that 
the phrase may emphasize the co-operation of men in the realiza- 
tion of fellowship, “ In fulfilling this issue, God works with man” 
(Westcott, who compares Ac. xv. 4). But it is at least equally 
possible that the usage of the Hebrew preposition Dy may have 
influenced the choice of preposition. 

ὅτι κιτιλ.] The ground of the assurance. Those who have 
attained to fellowship share, in some degree, the character of the 
Christ, as He is in His exalted state, in perfect fellowship with 
the Father. Cf. Jn. xvil. 23, ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί: iva ὦσιν 
τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν. Those who are like their Judge, can await 
with confidence the result of His decrees. The fellowship is 
limited by the conditions of earthly life (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ). 
Otros “emphasizes the idea of transitoriness.” But so far as it 
goes the fellowship is real. 

ἐκεῖνος] is generally used in this Epistle of the exalted Christ ; 
Ef. 1 6; 101 3, ἘΠ 7. αὐ. 

ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως] Cf. 11. 28, ἐὰν φανερωθῇ. However 
much the writer may seek to spiritualize the ordinary Christian, 
or even the Synoptic, eschatology, he has not eliminated from 
the sphere of his theological thought the idea of a final “day” of 
judgment, when the processes which are already at work shall 
reach their final issue and manifestation. The attempts which 
have been made to draw a distinction in this respect between the 
Gospel and the Epistle cannot be said to have been successful. 


ἢ αγαπη] του θεου 96 alPauc vecle tol. sah>w: ezus arm, 
μεθ nuwy|+ev nuw &. 

exper] exouev ἐξ Καὶ al.®: σχωμεν 7} 18 (—-), 

ΤῊ] om, .7. 844 (794). 

Ἡμερα] ayamn &. 

ore. . . ἐσμεν] ut... simus Sah>w (non liquet sah‘), 
Kptoews | + προς Tov ενανθρωπησαντα 7 ΣῦΒη 115. CIS ΞΟ}: 

εκεινος] κακεινος 13 4].3, 

ἐστιν] ἣν εν τω κοσμῳ αμωμος Kat καθαρος ουτως 70 1196: 866 ( _), 
ἐσμεν] ἐσομεθα S. 


18. Fear, which is essentially self-centred, has no place in 
love, which in its perfection involves complete self-surrender. 


IV. 18, 19.] NOTES ON I JOHN 125 


The two cannot exist side by side. The presence of fear is a 
sign that love is not yet perfect. ‘‘ Love cannot be mingled with 
fear” (Seneca, Zp. Mor. xlvii. 18). 

κόλασιν ἔχει] not only ‘includes the punishment which it 
anticipates,” but is in itself of the nature of punishment. Till 
love is supreme, it is a necessary chastisement, a part of the 
divine discipline, which has its salutary office. κόλασις is used 
in the New Testament only here and in Mt. xxv. 46, cf. 2 Mac. 
iv. 38. (Contrast the use of τιμωρία, “‘requital.”) The expres- 
sion must mean here more than ‘ ‘suffers punishment, a as in 
Hermas, (ὃ: ix. 18. 1, 6 μὴ γινώσκων θεὸν καὶ πονηρευόμενος ἔχει 
κόλασίν τινα τῆς πονηρίας αὐτοῦ. 

ἕξω βάλλεῦ) Cf. Mt. v. 13, xiii. 48; Jn. vi. 37, ix. 34, xii. 31, 
xv. 6. Love must altogether banish fear from the enclosure in 
which her work is done. 

ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος x.7.A.] Till fear has been “cast outside,” love 
has not been made perfect. Cf. Philo, guwod Deus sit immut. 69 
(Cohn, ii. 72), τοῖς μὲν οὖν μήτε μέρος μήτε πάθος ἄνθρωπου περὶ 
τὸ ὃν νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ θεοπρεπῶς αὐτὸ δι αὐτὸ μόνον τιμῶσι τὸ 
ἀγαπᾶν οἰκειότατον, φοβεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἑτέροις, quoted by Windisch. 


ev Tn] ἡ 15.}4 (335): om. τη 70 353 (2), 
φοβος (? 2°)] φοβούμενος 75 8157 (ς47) 75 174 (250), 


19. ἡμεῖς] We Christians, as in ver. 17. The point has been 
much disputed whether the verb (ἀγαπῶμεν) is to be interpreted 
as an exhortation (conjunctive) or as a statement of fact (in- 
dicative). The attempt to construe it as a conjunctive has led 
to various modifications of the text, the introduction of a con- 
necting particle οὖν, never found in the true text of this Epistle 
(cf., however, 3 Jn. 8), or the insertion of an object for the verb 
(τὸν θεόν, αὐτόν, znuicem). And both modifications would be 
natural if the clause is to be taken as hortatory. But a further 
meditation on the nature of love as manifested in us is more 
suitable to the context, and it gives a deeper meaning to the 
words. Our love is not self-originated. It has a divine origin. 
It is called out in response to what God has given. Thus inter- 
preted, the words offer a far more powerful incentive to the 
exercise of love than a mere exhortation, and they have their 
natural place in the writer’s thoughts. God is love; by the path 
of love we can enter into His fellowship (16): in our case love 
is made perfect in proportion as it casts out fear and establishes 
full confidence (17, 18). And it rests on something greater 
and stronger than our own powers. It is the response of our 
nature to the love which God Himself has shown. Such love 
which He has called out in us must find an object. If it 
fails to find out the nearer object, it will never reach the 


126 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [IV. 19, 20. 


further (19, 20). And besides this, there is the Lord’s express 
command (21). 
αὐτός] The variant 6 θεός is probably a true explanation. 
But αὐτός is not only better attested, it is more in harmony 
with the writer’s style. 
πρῶτος] Cf. Jn. i. 42. 
nuets 8 BK L al. longe. plur. cat. sah. cop. syr? arm. Thphyl. Oec. Aug. ] 
+ouw As. 8. 13. 31. 98. IOI. 105. 106**. 107. 177** g8 ks al. pauc. 
vg. syrscb, 
ayarwuev AB 5. 27. 29. 66** fu. aeth. boh-codd. Aug. Pelag. Bed.] 
scimus sah. :+ Tov θεὸν & 13. 33. 34. 68. 69. 91. 137 aS csr dser yg. demid. 
harl. tol. sur. boh-ed. arm. 1,60 : - αὐτὸν Καὶ L al. longe. plur. cat. Thphyl. 
Oec. Aug. :+22uzcem am. Leo. 
avros % BK Lal. pler. cat. harl. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Thphyl. Oec 
Aug.]o deos A 5. 8. 13. 14*. 33. 34. 81. vg. Pelag. 
mpwros] mpwrov 5. 8. 25. 40. 69. asf, 
nyarnoey | ἡγαπήκεν 13. 


20. ἐάν τις εἴπῃ] Cf. i. 6, ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, and the more definite 
ὃ λέγων (ii. 4). The false claim is mentioned quite generally. At 
the same time, it is not improbable that the false teachers, who 
claimed to possess a superior knowledge of the true God, may 
also have laid claim to a superior love of the Father, who was 
“ood,” and not merely “just,” as the God of the Old Testa- 
ment. And the emphasis laid throughout the Epistle on the 
duty of mutual love makes it clear that their “superior” love 
had been more or less conspicuous in its failure to begin at 
home, or to master the import of the Lord’s verdict, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον οὐκ 
ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, οὐδὲ ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε. 

μισῇ] Cf. il. 9. 

ψεύστης ἐστίν] He not only states what is false (ψεύδεται), but 
reveals by his false claim a real falseness of character, if the 
difference between two possible forms of expression is to be 
pressed. 

ὁ γὰρ κιτιλ.] Love must express itself in action. He who 
refuses to make use of the obvious opportunities, which his 
position in this world affords him, cannot entertain the highest 
love. 

ὃν ἑώρακεν] Cf. Oec. ἐφελκυστικὸν yap ὅρασις πρὸς ἀγάπην, and 
the saying of Philo, de Decalogo, § 23 (Cohn, iv. 296), ἀμήχανον 
δὲ εὐσεβεῖσθαι τὸν ἀόρατον ὑπὸ τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ ἐγγὺς ὄντας 
ἀσεβούντων. 

οὐ δύναται] The reading of & B, etc., is perhaps more impress- 
ive and more in agreement with the writer’s love of absolute 
statement than the variant which Westcott condemns as ‘the 
rhetorical phrase of the common text” (πῶς δύναται). At the 
same time the latter reading suggests a new point. The man 
who rejects the obvious method of giving expression to love in 


IV. 20, 21.] NOTES ON I JOHN 127 


the case of those whom he has seen, has no way left by which 
he can attempt the harder task of reaching out to that which is 
invisible. 

ort] om. δὲ Aug. (625). 

ayarw] post θεον 1° #7 (505): ἀγαπα J° (216): ηγαπήκεν A 88 (33), 

pon] μισει Khal.* cat. Dam. Thphyl. 

yap] om. 75 18 (395) 7° 107 (29). 

ov δυναται] δὲ B 27. 29. 66**. 68. 69 aS sah. syr. Leif.] πως δυναται 

AK Lal. pler. cat. vg. syr. cop. arm. aeth. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. Cyp. Aug. 


αγαπαν] αγαπησαι 13 al. 


21. The duty of love not only follows necessarily from what 
God has done for us, it rests on His direct commandment. 

ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] naturally refers to God, as the variant in the 
Vulgate interprets it, though here as elsewhere, in the language 
of meditation, when the writer is of Semitic origin, a change of 
person is by no means impossible. 

The most direct statement of the command is Mk. xii. 29 ff., 
where the Lord quotes the command of Dt. vi. 4, 5. The writer 
no doubt knew the Marcan passage, even if he had not himself 
heard the saying which it records, when it was originally spoken. 
Cf. also Jn. xili. 34. 


exouev] accepimus sah. boh-codd. 

am avrov] amo Tov θεου A vg. am. demid. harl. tol. 
om. θεον. . . Tov 2° B* Αἴ (uid.). 

om. Kat 2° 13. 34. 

αντου (Ὁ 2°)] eavrov 7°14 (335), 


II. v. 1-12. Second presentation of the two main thoughts 
closely combined together. Faith the ground of love. 

1. v. la. Faith the sign of the Birth from God (cf. ii. 29, 
iv. 7, Love). 

2. v. 1b-4. The love of God which is the true ground of 
love of the brethren, is the sign of love of the brethren 
(contrast iv. 20). 

3. v. 5-12. Faith, in its full assurance, the witness to Jesus 
as being the Christ. 

1. v. la. Faith the sign of the Birth from God. 

1ff. The writer has shown that love has its origin in the 
nature of God, and is not merely an affection of human nature. 
He has also reminded his readers how their love for God, the 
reflex of His love for us, can be tested. The truth of our claim 
to love God is shown in our attitude towards the brethren. He 
now proceeds to show why this is so, and how we can be sure of 
the sincerity of our love for others. The love of a child for its 
father and for its brother or sister are facts of nature. Every one 
who loves the father who begat him naturally loves the other 
children whom his father has begotten. The facts of the 


128 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [v. 1. 


spiritual birth are analogous. What is true of the human family 
is also true of the Divine Society. If we love the Father who 
hath “begotten us again,” and the reality of that love is shown 
in our active obedience (ποιῶμεν) to His commands, we may be 
assured that our love to His other (spiritual) children is real and 
sincere. Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ shows 
by that belief, as it manifests itself in word and deed as well as 
in intellectual conviction, that he has experienced the new birth. 
Those who are ‘born of God” must love all His children, as 
surely as it is natural that any child should love his father’s 
other children. 

1. πᾶς ὃ πιστεύων KT. | Cf. Jn. i. 12f. ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, 
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO 
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. .. ol... ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. Where true faith 
in Jesus as God’s appointed messenger to men is present, there 
the new birth has taken place. The writer does not state 
whether faith is the cause or the result of the new birth. The 
point is not present to his thoughts, and his argument does not 
require its elucidation. What he wishes to emphasize is the fact 
that they go together. Where true faith is the new birth is a 
reality, and has abiding and permanent consequences. The 
believer has been born of God. But incidentally the tenses 
‘““make it clear that the Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not 
the consequent of the believing.” ‘Christian belief, which is 
essentially the spiritual recognition of spiritual truth, is a function 
of the Divine Life as imparted to men” (Law). 

ὁ πιστεύων] Πιστεύειν ὅτι expresses belief in the truth of a 
statement or thesis. ‘The phrase used in the passage quoted 
above from the Gospel (πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) suggests complete 
and voluntary submission to the guidance of a Person, as 
possessed of the character which his name implies. But though 
the writer is careful to distinguish the two, he would have been 
unable to conceive of any true faith stopping short at intellectual 
conviction of the abstract truth of a statement like that which 
follows in the clause introduced by ὅτι, which had no effect on 
the shaping of a man’s conduct. He would have regarded the 
belief that Jesus is the Christ as inseparable from faith in Jesus 
as Christ. Neither belief nor knowledge are for him purely 
intellectual processes. 

ἸΙησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός] The exact form of this confession of 
faith is conditioned by the antichrists’ denial (cf. ii. 22, ὃ ἀρνού- 
μενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐστὶν ὃ Χριστός). It lays stress on the 
identity of the man Jesus with the Christ who became incarnate 
in Him, as opposed to the theories, then prevalent, of the descent 
of a higher power on Jesus at the Baptism, which left Him before 
the Crucifixion. 


Vv. 1, 2.] NOTES ON I JOHN 129 


καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν k.7.d. | The child’s love for its parent naturally 
carries with it love for brothers and sisters. The step in the 
argument, “ Every one that is born of God loveth God,” is passed 
over as too obvious to require statement. Weare again reminded 
that we have to deal with the language of meditation. 


ayara B 7. 13. 33. 62 om. demid. tol. sah. Hil. Aug.]+xa. 8 AK LP 
al. pler. cat. vg. harl. syr. arm. aeth. boh. Cyr. Thdt. Thphyl. Oec. Hil. 
Aug. Bed. 

0 χριστος εστιν 7 860F (440). 

γεέγενηται 78 5505%. §459%. 952%. 256. 1402 (Gg), 

Tov 29] το & 31. 


2. As usual a test is added by which the sincerity of the love 
may be determined. “Ev τούτῳ points forward. This is clearly 
the established usage of ἐν τούτῳ in the Epistle, but difficulty has 
been felt in thus explaining it here, because the clause to which 
it points forward is introduced by ὅταν, instead of the usual con- 
structions, ἐάν, ὅτι, ora disconnected sentence. But the difficulty 
is not serious, and it is probable that ἐν τούτῳ should be inter- 
preted as usual. Whenever our love to God is clear, and issues 
in active obedience to His will, we know by this that our love 
for His children is real. Weiss’ explanation, which makes ἐν 
τούτῳ refer back to the statement immediately preceding (πᾶς ὃ 
ἀγαπῶν x.7.A.), is perhaps at first sight easier. ‘‘ When, or as soon 
as, we love God, we love also the children of God, in accordance 
with the law that love for him who begets has as its necessary 
consequence love for those whom he has begotten” (p. 150). 
Thus the duty of loving the brethren is deduced from the natural 
law of affection, as well as being directly commanded by God. 
But the other interpretation is more in accordance with the writer’s 
wish to emphasize the Divine origin of love. There is certainly 
no need to reduce the verse to the merest repetition of what has 
been already said, by the transposition of the objects ‘‘ Hereby 
we know that we love God, when we love the children of God,” 
as Grotius and others have suggested. 

τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ] The use of this phrase instead of “the 
brethren” is significant. True love, which has its origin in God, 
is called out by that in its object which is akin to the Divine. 
Every one who has been born of God must love all those who 
have been similarly ennobled. Love of God bears witness to, 
and has witness borne to itself by, love of the godlike. 

Ἢ Ais του θεου] filium Dez arm. boh-codd. : Dominumaeth. | orav] 

sé boh. 

οταν . . . ἀγαπωμεν] ev τω αγαπαν Tov θεον 13. ΤΟΙ. 57\!€ct, 

ποιωμεν B 27. 29. 64. 69. τοῦ. 15!°*t asct dscr gscr vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. 
aeth. Thphyl. Leif. Aug.] wovoumev 5. 17. 33. 34: τηρωμεν NK LP al. 


pler. cat. tol. σαν. Oec. : τήρουμεν 31* al.?. 
om. ποιωμεν---(3) αὐτου 1° A 3. 42. 66** 100. ΙΟΙ- 


9 


130 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [V. 2-4. 


The reading τηρῶμεν is clearly a correction to the more usual 
phrase which occurs in ver. 3. In itself the reading of B, etc., is 
more forcible. It emphasizes the active character of the obedi- 
ence which testifies to the love felt for God and therefore for 
the brethren. 

3. The first clause justifies the addition of the last clause of 
ver. 2, καὶ Tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ ποιῶμεν. Obedience to His commands 
is the necessary outcome of love to God. There is no such 
thing as true love of God which does not issue in obedience. 

αὕτη ... ἵνα] Cf. Jn. xvii. 3. The definitive ἵνα generally 
introduces an ideal not yet actually attained. This is perhaps 
the only class of ideas whose contents it is used to define. 

τηρῶμεν] Contrast ver. 2 (ποιῶμεν). Actual “doing” is the 
test of love. But love includes more of obedience than the 
actual carrying out of definite commands. It accepts them as 
the expression of an underlying principle, which is capable of 
moulding the whole character, and which must be kept alive and 
given scope to work. 

βαρεῖαι] Cf. Mt. xxiii. 4, δεσμεύουσιν δὲ φορτία Bapéa: Lk. xi. 
46, φορτίζετε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φορτία δυσβάστακτα : and contrast 
Mt. xi. 30, τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν. The word cannot here 
mean “difficult to fulfil.” It suggests the idea of a heavy and 
oppressive burden. The commands may be in themselves 
difficult to carry out, and yet not burdensome, if the Christian is 
possessed of adequate power to fulfil them, in virtue of his 
Christian standing and love: dlige et guod vis fac (Augustine). 
Windisch regards vv. 3 and 4 as intended to show the possibility 
of fulfilling the Divine commands, and of realizing the Divine 
ideal for men. (1) On the side of God, He does not demand what 
is too hard formen. Cf. Philo, de sfec. leg. i. 299, p. 2 573 αἰτεῖται 

. ὦ διάνοια, παρὰ σοῦ ὃ θεὸς οὐδὲν βαρὺ. καὶ ποικίλον ἢ i] δύσεργον, 
ἀλλὰ ἁπλοῦν πανὺ καὶ ῥάδιον. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀγαπᾶν αὐτὸν ὡς εὐερ- 
γέτην, εἰ δὲ μή, φοβεῖσθαι γοῦν ὡς ἄρχοντα καὶ κύριον... καὶ τῶν 
ἐντολῶν αὐτοῦ περιέχεσθαι καὶ τὰ δίκαια τιμᾶν. (2) On man’s 
side, the necessary power has been given to him. But this inter- 
pretation ignores the form of the sentence (ὅτι πᾶν k.7.A.). 


yap]om. 2788 (Ψ) KX (5) sah boh-codd. 


4. And this power each Christian has, in virtue of the new 
birth from God. The statement is made in its most abstract 
form (πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον) which emphasizes the power of the 
new birth rather than its possession by each individual (πᾶς ὃ 
γεγεννημένος). Every one who is born of God has within himself 
a power strong enough to overcome the resistance of all the 
powers of the world, which hinder him from loving God. 

kai αὕτη κ-τ.λ.] For the form of expression, cf. 1. 5; Jn. i. 19. 


Υ. 4, 5.] NOTES ON I JOHN 131 


Our faith, the faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the 
Son of God, accepted not as an intellectual conviction but as a 
rule of life, overcame in our case the powers of the world, which 
fight for a different principle of life. The aorist (νικήσασα) 
naturally points to a definite act, or fact. The writer must be 
thinking either of the conversion of each member of the com- 
munity, ‘the moment when he ἐπίστευσεν," or else of some 
well-known event in the history of the Church or Churches 
addressed. The most natural reference is to the definite with- 
drawing of the false teachers from the fellowship of the Church. 
There is no obvious reference to the victory of Christ over the 
world (cf. Jn. xvi. 33, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον) which His followers 
share in virtue of their faith, 2.6. in so far as they unite themselves 
with Him. 


mas o γεγεννήμενος 75 173 (156). 
μων S ABK Pal. pler. cat. vg. εἴς. ὑμων L 3. 42. 57. 98. 105. 191 
al. fere.*? aeth. 


5. τίς ἐστιν] Cf. ii. 22, τίς ἐστιν ὃ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ «7.4. The 
appeal is to practical experience. He who has realized what 
Jesus of Nazareth really was, and he alone, has in himself the 
power which overcomes the forces of the world which draw men 
away from God; cf. 1 Co. xv. 57. 

ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ] Cf. verse 1, ὃ xpiords. The fuller phrase 
brings out the meaning more clearly, though the writer prob- 
ably means much the same by both titles. He varies his 
phrase to leave no doubt about his meaning. The πρῶτον 
ψεῦδος of the false teachers was the denial, not that Jesus was 
the Messiah of the Jews, but that He was the complete revela- 
tion of the Father, the assertion that the higher Power that was 
in Him was only temporarily connected with Him during a 
part of His earthly life. 


τις εστιν AL al. pler. vg. sah. Oec.] pr. δέ arm. :+d6e αὶ (Β) ΚΡ 13. 29. 
66**. 68. 69 aS“ al. fere.! cat. cav. demid. tol. cop. syr. arm. Did. Cyr. 
Thphyl. (ris de ecrw Β σαν. demid. tol. Did.). 

0 πιστευων] o πιστευσας Ρ. 

inoous + Christus arm-codd. boh-codd., 

ἐστιν] om. 75 14° (210). 

o uios] pr. ο xpisTos 13. 56: ο xs 75 358 (56), 


6-9. He, the pre-existent Son of God, was sent from heaven 
by God to do His will. He came to earth to fulfil His Mission. 
In His fulfilment of it, two events are prominent: the Baptism 
by which He was consecrated to His Messianic work, and the 
Passion by which He completed His work of atonement and 
propitiation. His coming was not in the water of John’s 
Baptism alone, it was realized even more fully in the Blood 


132 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [V. 6. 


which He shed upon the Cross. ‘‘He that came” is the title 
which best characterizes His work. The function of the Spirit 
was different. It was to bear witness. He was the witness- 
bearer. And He was fitted for His office, for truth is of the 
essence of His being. He is the truth. And the witness may 
be trusted, for it is threefold. The witness-bearers are three: 
the Spirit, whose very nature qualifies Him for the office; the 
water of John’s Baptism, after which He was declared to be the 
Son of God ; and the blood shed upon the Cross, where testimony 
was again given to the fact that He is the Son of God, for His 
death was not like that of other men. Thus the three witnesses 
all tend to the same point. They establish the one truth that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 

6. Of the many interpretations of this passage which have 
been suggested, only three deserve serious consideration: (1) 
A reference to the two Christian Sacraments of Baptism and 
the Eucharist naturally suggested itself to many interpreters of 
the Epistle, especially in view of the 4th and 6th chapters 
of the Gospel. But it is open to more than one fatal objection. 
If ὕδωρ can be satisfactorily explained of Baptism, αἷμα is never 
found in the New Testament as a designation of the Eucharist. 
And, secondly, the form of the sentence, 6 ἐλθὼν δι ὕδατος καὶ 
αἵματος, almost necessitates a reference to definite historical 
facts in the life of Christ on earth which could be regarded as 
peculiarly characteristic of the Mission which He “came” to 
fulfil. If the writer had intended to refer to the Christian 
Sacraments, he must have said ὃ ἐρχόμενος. It is hardly 
necessary to point out that any interpretations which refer one 
of the expressions to a rite instituted by Christ, and the other to 
something which happened to Him (as, e.g., the Christian rite of 
baptism, and the atoning death on the Cross), are even less 
satisfactory. See Cambridge Greek Testament. 

(2) The reference to the incident recorded in Jn. xix. 34 was 
also natural, considering the stress laid upon it by the author 
of the Gospel, and the exact language in which he records the 
result of the piercing of the Lord’s side by the soldier’s lance, 
ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ. This incident gives a definite fact which 
would justify the use of the aorist (ὁ ἐλθών). And the difference 
in order (αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ) offers no real difficulty. It is easily 
explicable as a consequence of the writer’s desire to throw 
special emphasis on the αἷμα, which he develops further in the 
next clause, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ TO αἵματι, 
But it is difficult to see how this incident could be regarded as 
characterizing the Lord’s Mission as a whole. No doubt the 
incident, as the writer had seen it or heard the account of it 
from a trustworthy and competent witness, had made a deep 


Vv. 6.] NOTES ON I JOHN 153 


impression upon him. It had suggested to him the significance 
of “blood” and “water” as symbolizing two characteristic 
aspects of the Lord’s work, cleansing and life-giving. But the 
incident itself could hardly be thought of as the means whereby 
He accomplished His work. As an explanation of the actual 
words used, 6 ἐλθὼν Ov ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, it fails to satisfy the 
requirements of the case. 

(3) We are thus thrown back on the explanation of 
Tertullian, Theophylact, and many modern commentators, who 
see in the words a reference to the Baptism of Jesus by John the 
Baptist, in which at the beginning of His ministry He was con- 
secrated to His Messianic work and received the gift of the) 
Spirit descending upon Him and aédzding on Him, and the Death 
on the Cross by which His work was consummated. The terms 
used refer definitely to the historical manifestation of the Son 
of God, and compel us to look for definite and characteristic 
events in that history by means of which it could be said that 
His mission was accomplished, His “coming” effected. The 
two great events at the beginning and the end of the ministry 
satisfactorily fulfil these conditions. At the Baptism He was 
specially consecrated for His public work, and endowed with the 
Spirit which enabled Him to carry it out. And His work was 
not finished before Calvary. The Death on the Cross was 
its consummation, not a mere incident in the life of an 
ordinary man, after the Higher Power had left Him, which had 
temporarily united itself with His human personality for the 
purposes of His mission of teaching. 

The middle clause of the verse distinguishes two facts, and 
lays emphasis on the latter. The repetition of both preposition 
and article brings this out clearly. The statement is as precise 
as grammar can make it. And the whole statement, including 
what is said about the function of the Spirit as witness-bearer, is 
no doubt conditioned by the special form of erroneous teaching 
which had made so precise a statement necessary. 

Though Tertullian apparently adheres to this interpretation, 
his mention of it shows the early connection of this passage with 
the incident at the Crucifixion, recorded in Jn. xix. 34. Cf. Tert. 
de Baptismo, 16, “‘Uenerat enim per aquam et sanguinem, 
sicut Ioannes scripsit, ut aqua tingueretur, sanguine glorificaretur, 
proinde nos facere aqua uocatos, sanguine electos. Hos duos 
baptismos de uulnere perfossi lateris emisit, quatenus qui in 
sanguinem eius crederent, aqua lauarentur, qui aqua lauissent, 
etiam sanguinem potarent.” 

The combination of the historical and sacramental explanation 
is well illustrated by Bede, “ Qui uenit per aquam et sanguinem, 
aquam uidelicet lauacri et sanguinem suae passionis: non 


134 THE EPISTLES OF 5: JOHN [V. 6. 


solum baptizari propter nostram ablutionem dignatus est, ut 
nobis baptismi sacramentum consecraret ac traderet, uerum 
etiam sanguinem suum dedit pro nobis, sua nos passione 
redimens, cuius sacramentis semper refecti nutriremur ad 
salutem.” Considering his usual dependence upon Augustine, 
this may be taken as probably giving that writer’s comment on 
the passage, especially if we compare his comment on the passage 
in the Gospel (Zyact. cxx. 2), “‘ Aferutt, ut illic quodammodo 
uitae ostium panderetur, unde Sacramenta Ecclesiae manauerunt, 
sine quibus ad uitam quae uera uita est non intratur. 1116 sanguis 
in remissionem fusus est peccatorum: aqua illa salutare temperat 
poculum ; haec et lauacrum praestat et potum.” 

The passage was naturally allegorized by the Alexandrian 
School ; cf. Clement, “‘ Iste est qui uenit per aquam et sanguinem ” 
et iterum “quia tres sunt qui testificantur, Spiritus, quod est 
uita, et aqua quod est regeneratio ac fides, et sanguis, quod est 
cognitio,” where the interpretation illustrates the absence of 
historical sense which usually characterizes the Allegorists. It 
would, of course, be possible to interpret the passage of the 
whole of the life of Jesus on earth, in which the Son of God was 
manifested in flesh, ὕδωρ and αἷμα being used as symbols of two 
different aspects of the work which He accomplished during that 
life, as, e.g., cleansing and life-giving, according to the recog- 
nized Biblical usage of the terms. But if this had been intended 
the context must have made it plain that this was the meaning 
which the writer wished to convey. His readers could hardly 
have deduced it from the passage as it stands. 

οὗτος] Jesus, who is both Christ and Son of God. For this 
use of οὗτος to emphasize the character of the subject as 
previously described, see Jn. i. 2, 7, ili. 2 (xxl. 24); 1 Jn. ii. 22, 
cf. 2 Jn. 7. He who came was both Christ and Son of God. 
The incarnation of the Son of God in human nature was not a 
merely temporary connection during part only of the earthly life 
of Jesus of Nazareth. 

ὁ ἐλθών] The article is significant. He is one whose office 
or work is rightly characterized by the description given. And 
the aorist naturally refers to definite historical facts, or to the 
whole life regarded as one fact. It is hardly safe to find in 
the expression ὃ ἐλθών a distinct reference to the (?) Messianic 
title ὃ ἐρχόμενος, and so discover in the phrase a special in- 
dication of the office and work of Messiah. The idea emphasized 
in this and similar expressions would seem to be generally the 
course of action taken in obedience to the command of God. 
The “coming” of the Son corresponds to the “sending” of 
the Father. It expresses the fulfilment of the Mission which 
He was sent to accomplish. As that Mission was Messianic 


v. 6.] NOTES ON I JOHN 135 


in character, Messianic ideas may often be suggested by the 
phrase, but they are secondary. ‘‘He who accomplished the 
Mission entrusted to Him by God” seems to be the meaning of 
the word. 

δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος] The difficulty of the phrase is reflected 
in the attempts to modify the text. Cf. the critical note. The 
phrase should express means by which the “coming” was ac- 
complished, or elements by which it was characterized. Cf. 
2 Co. v. 7, διὰ πίστεως περιπατεῖν. The tense of ἐλθών excludes 
any primary reference to the Christian sacraments, even if ὕδωρ 
and αἷμα could be used to indicate them (see note at the begin- 
ning of the verse). As has been pointed out, the order of the 
words is not in itself decisive against such a reference or against 
a reference to the incident recorded in Jn. xix. 34 (ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα 
καὶ ὕδωρ). The real objection to the latter view is the difficulty 
of seeing how that incident could be regarded as characteristic 
means by which the “coming” was accomplished. It may well 
have suggested to the writer the peculiar significance of two 
aspects of the coming, but can hardly be regarded as an event 
by means of which the coming was fulfilled. On the other 
hand, the Baptism and the Crucifixion were both important 
factors in the carrying out of the Mission which He came to 
fulfil, and in this light they stand out more prominently than 
any other two recorded events of the Ministry. 

οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον] The writer evidently feels that further 
precision is necessary to make his meaning clear and unmistak- 
able. It is clear that he has to deal with a form of teaching 
which denied the reality, or at least the supreme importance, 
of the coming ἐν τῷ αἵματι. The use of the article is natural, 
where the reference is to what has been mentioned before. The» 
repetition of both article and preposition certainly suggests that 
two different events are referred to, a point which the earlier 
phrase δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος left doubtful. 

The difference in meaning between the two prepositions 
used is not very clear. The events may be regarded as instru- 
ments by which the Mission was accomplished ; or, on the other 
hand, water and blood, or rather the realities which they symbol- 
ize, may be thought of as spheres in which the work, or purpose, 
of the Mission was characteristically realized. But the influence 
of Semitic forms of expression may have gone far towards 
obliterating any difference in meaning between the two forms 
of expression. Cf. Lv. xvi. 3 (ἐν μόσχῳ) ; 1 Co. iv. 21 (ἐν ῥάβδῳ 
- +. ἢ ἐν ἀγάπῃ) ; He. ix. 12 (διὰ τοῦ ἰδίον αἵματος εἰσῆλθεν), 25 
(εἰσέρχεται... ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ). 

καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα k.T.A.] Τὸ μαρτυροῦν expresses the characteristic 
office of τὸ πνεῦμα, as ὃ ἐλθών does of οὗτος. It is not merely 


136 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [v. 6. 


equivalent to μαρτυροῦν. Christ was the fulfiller of the Divine 
plan. Cf. He. x. 7 (Ps. xl. 8), τότε εἶπον: ἰδοὺ ἥκω, ἐν κεφαλίδι 
βιβλίου γέγραπται περὶ ἐμοῦ τοῦ ποιῆσαι, ὃ θεὸς, τὸ θέλημά σου. 
The special function of the Spirit is to bear witness to what the 
Christ was and came to do. It is not improbable that in the 
false teaching which is here combated, a totally different function 
had been assigned to the Spirit (cf. Introduction, p. xlix). We 
may, perhaps, see a parallel instance in the description of the 
proper function of the Baptist contained in the Prologue of the 
Gospel, (οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς) ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. 
To the Baptist also some had assigned a different and a higher 
function. Perhaps, however, the sequence of thought in the 
passage as a whole may be brought out more clearly by a 
simpler interpretation, which does not exclude a secondary 
reference to the ideas which have been suggested. ‘‘ He” came 
both by water and by blood. Both bore witness to the char- 
acter of His Mission. But there was other witness, and more 
important. The Spirit is ¢ze witness-bearer. And so the 
witness is threefold. It fulfils the requirements of legally valid 
attestation. If we recognize the proper place and function of 
the Spirit, we gain assurance which cannot be shaken. 

The present tense excludes the need of any definite historical 
reference in the case of the Spirit, as, for instance, the Voice at 
the Baptism, or the Voice which spake from heaven shortly before 
the Passion (Jn. xii. 28). 

The best explanation of the author’s meaning is to be found 
in the account of the function of the Paraclete in Jn. xv. 26, 
TO πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος 
μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ. Cf. also Jn. xiv. 26, xvi. 8-10, 13-15. 

ὅτι] Either declarative or causal. The former gives a possible 
meaning. The Spirit “carries with it immediately the conscious- 
ness of its truth and reality,” is in itself the best witness to its 
own nature, which is truth. But this is alien to the context. 
The emphasis is on the function of witnessing. This function 
the Spirit can perform perfectly, because the Spirit is the truth. 
The very nature of the Spirit is truth. Cf. Jn. xv. 26. By 
its very nature it is not only capable of bearing true witness, but 
it is also constrained to do so. It cannot deny itself. 


ελθων pr. vs Tou Ov 7. 358 (56). 

και amaros B K L al. plu. vg. (am. fu. demid. harl.) syrs® Cyr. 
Thphyl. Oec. Tert.]: pr. καὶ πνευματος 5. 68. 83 arm. aeth.: καὶ mvev- 
ματος 54. 103. 104 Cyr. Ambr. : om. /* #8 (56) 782-161. 472 (498) 7°69 (—): 
+kat πνεύματος 6. 7. 13. 15. 18. 25. 29. 30. 33. 34. 36. 39. 66**. 69. 
80. 98. 101. 137 (+ayov 33. 34. 39) aS al. pauc. cav. tol. sah. cop. syr? 
Cyr. 

αἰματος] pr. δι 7518 (—) A (45). 

tyoous χριστος SN A B Lal. plu. arm. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec.: xpioros 


V. 6-8.] NOTES ON I JOHN 137 


inoous K Ph 15. 22. 33. 34. 36. 39. 56. 100. 192 cat. arm-codd. sah. 
Ambr. : tjcous ὁ xpioros minusc. uix. multi. syr? Thphyloo™® Oeccom, 

μονον] μονω Β. 

εντω ὑδατι. . . aati] εν τω αιματι . . . vdaTe Ρ 31*. 83arm.: εν τω 
υδατι. . . πνευματι A 21. 41 Cyr.: εν τω αἱματι . . . πνευματι 66**, 80: 
+et spiritu cay. tol. aeth. 

Tw 2°] om. 5 (Ψ). 

erg AB LP 4515.53. 17. 18. 21: 33. 40: 41 ΟΣ 80; 89. ΤΙ 7. Ὁ 
ks¢r cat. Cyr.] om. & K al. plu. vg. boh-cod, Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. 

τω 3°] om, 2183. 103 (61). 

και To] ore 75. 3911 (96). 

το πνευμα 2°] χριστος 34 vg. ΦΥΓΉ". ; om. τὸ A756 (Ψὴ 75.168 (2305). 


7. ὅτι τρεῖς κιτ.λ.] The witness to the fact that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God, is trustworthy. It fulfils the conditions 
of legally valid witness, as laid down in Dt. xix. 15, οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ 
μάρτυς εἷς μαρτυρῆσαι κατὰ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ κατὰ 
πᾶν ἁμάρτημα καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἣν ἂν ἁμάρτῃ: ἐπὶ στόματος 
δυὸ μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων στήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα. 
CE Dt. ἘγΠ 6; Mt. xviii. 165 2 Co. ΧΙ τ; Jn. vi. τὴ. This’obvi- 
ous that the same interpretation must be given to πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, 
and αἷμα here as in the preceding verse. The Christ “came” 
by water and by blood, and the Spirit bore witness to Him and 
to His Mission. ‘The witness of the Spirit is supported by the 
witness of the water and the blood. The means by which He 
accomplished His Mission are subsidiary witnesses to its char- 
acter. And the witnesses agree. The Spirit, and the opening 
and closing scenes of the Ministry as interpreted by the Spirit, 
bear similar witness to the Christ. 

εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν] Are for the one thing, tend in the same 
direction, exist for the same object. They all work towards the 
same result, the establishing of the truth that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God. 


εἰσιν om. > 157 (20). 

μαρτυρουντες] μαρτυρουσιν 7 8 (Ψ)ὴ 25 [47 (335), 
και 15] om. 70 §G02ffft (522). 

και 3°] om. A786 (Ψ). 

kat To vowp post awa arm-codd, 

το 4°] om. /*7° (505). 


8. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν κι-τ.λ.] Cf. Jn. v. 36. If we accept the 
testimony of men when it satisfies the conditions of evidence 
required by the law, much more are we bound to accept the 
witness which we possess in this case, for it is witness borne by 
God Himself. Cf. also Jn. vill. 18, καὶ μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὃ πέμψας 
με πατήρ, and x. 25, τὰ . ἔργα: ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν τῶ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός 
μου ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. Neither here nor in iv. 11 does 
the εἰ indicate any doubt: it is known to every one that we do 
accept such testimony. 

ὅτι αὕτη «.7.A.] Such witness is greater, and therefore more 


138 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [V. 8-10. 


worthy of our acceptance, because it is Divine witness, and 
deals with a subject on which God, and God alone, is fully 
competent to speak. It concerns His Son. God has borne 
witness concerning His Son. In this case the Divine witness 
alone is ἀληθινή in the full sense of the term, though other kinds 
of witness may be true so far as they go. 

ὅτι μεμαρτύρηκεν] The reading ὅτι is undoubtedly right. If 
the reading ἥν, of the Zextus Receptus, be adopted, the αὕτῃ 
must refer back to the witness already described, ze. that borne 
by the three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, or by 
the one witness, the Spirit, who interprets the evidence of the 
historical facts. ‘The witness meant must be the witness borne 
to the truth that Jesus is the Christ. If ὅτι is accepted, it may 
be taken in three ways: (1) Causal. In this case αὕτη must 
refer to what has preceded, the witness already described. Such 
is the witness, Divine and legally valid, for God really has borne 
witness to His Son. By laying the stress on the verb μεμαρτύ- 
ρήκεν it is perhaps possible to make sense of the passage in 
this way. But such an interpretation is very harsh, and not in 
conformity with the author’s style. 

(2) ὅ τι. This is the witness, z.e. that which He has borne 
concerning His Son. This use of 6 τι in the Johannine writings 
is not certainly established, though perhaps we should compare 
Jn. vill. 25, τὴν ἀρχὴν 6 τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν. In the present context 
it would be intolerably harsh. 

(3) It is far more natural and in accordance with the author’s 
style (cf. Jn. 11. το, αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις ὅτι TO φῶς ἐλήλυθεν 
κιτιλ.) to regard the ore as declarative. The value of the 
witness consists in this, that He has given it concerning His 
Son. There can be no more trustworthy witness, so far as 
competence to speak is concerned, than that which a father 
bears to his own son. The essence of the witness is that it is 
the testimony of God to His Son. In the Gospel, μαρτυρεῖν 
περί is very frequent (i. 7, 8, 15, ll. 25, V. 31, 32, etc.), elsewhere 
very rare. 


των ανθρωπων Tov θεου N* | του θεου (ἢ 1°)] των avwy 7» 55? (522) | om. 
ort 7° K arm. | 7 μαρτυρία 2°] post θεου 2° 75 | οτι 29 δὰ ABS. 6. 13. 27. 29. 
34. 66** vg. sah. cop. arm-codd. Cyr. Aug.] 7v K L Pal. pler. cat. arm- 
codd. Thphyl. Oec. : qui arm-ed. | περι τον wou αὐτου] de filio suo Lesu 
Christo arm-codd.:+ quem mist saluatorem super terram. Et filius 
testimonium perhibuit in terra scripturas perfictens ; et nos testimonium 
perhibemus, quoniam uidimus eum, et annuncitamus uobis ut credatis et 
zdeo tol. 


10. He who trusts himself to the guidance of the Son has in 
his own experience the witness which God bore to Him, it has 
become part of himself. He who does not accept the witness 


Vv. 10.] NOTES ON I JOHN 139 


as true has not only missed the truth, but has made God a liar ; 
for he has set aside as false the witness which God has borne 
concerning His own Son. 

ἐν αὐτῷ] in himself, as is made clear in the paraphrase of & 
(ἑαυτῷ). The passage must describe the ‘‘testimonium spiritus 
internum.” 

6 μὴ πιστεύων] The subjective negative is rightly used. It 
lays emphasis on the character rather than the fact of non- 
belief. A general class is described by its significant character- 
istic. But in N.T. od with the participle is rare, in the Johannine 
writings only Jn. x. 12. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. of VT. (γᾷ. 
i. 221: 

τῷ θεῷ] This construction (¢ dat.) expresses, as usually, 
acceptance of the statement rather than surrender to the person. 
The variants τῷ vid, Jesu Christo, miss the point of the verse. 

ψεύστην] Cf. i. το. There is no room for ignorance or mis- 
conception. ‘To reject the witness is to deny the truthfulness of 
God. He has spoken and acted deliberately, and with absolute 
clearness. The testimony has been borne. The things were not 
done in a corner. The witness must therefore either be accepted 
or rejected. It cannot be ignored or explained away. 

πεποίηκεν] The tense suggests a definite choice of which the 
effects abide. The rejection has been made, and its effects are 
inevitable. The aorist (οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν, A, etc.) is not so forcible. 

οὐ πεπίστευκεν] The negative emphasizes the actual fact 
rather than its character (contrast ὃ μὴ πιστεύων). The choice 
has been made, and its consequences are manifest. 

οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν] The nearest parallel to this 
expression is Jn. ii. 23 (πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 7.6. 
believed on Jesus as Messiah, as being that which His name 
implied, and were ready to follow Him as Messiah, till they 
discovered how different His conception of the Messianic office 
was from theirs). It seems to denote devotion to a person 
possessed of those qualities which the witness borne to him 
announces, or at least to the idea which is expressed in that 
witness. 

ἣν μεμαρτύρηκεν x.t.A.] The phrases of ver. 9 are repeated for 
emphasis; each point is dwelt upon. The witness has been 
borne, once for all; it cannot be ignored or set aside. It has 
been borne by God Himself, in a case where His word alone 
can be final, as it concerns His own Son. In the writer’s view 
there can be no excuse for refusing to accept evidence which is 
so clear and satisfactory. Cf. Rothe, “If God did not will that 
men should believe on Jesus, He led men into a terrible tempta- 
tion. So if we would keep our conception of God pure, we must 
ascribe this intention to Him in His ordering of the world. We 


140 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [στ 


generally put forward prominently whatever tells against Faith, 
but leave on one side what speaks for it. We ought first to 
answer satisfactorily the question, how it could be possible that 
this Faith should so widely permeate humanity before we investi- 
gate the force of our doubts, and then we should rest assured 
that Christianity is zon sine numine”; a striking comment, even 
if it can hardly be said to be called out by the exact expressions 
of the text. 


om. totum comma 75 fff (96) | τοῦ θεου] om. arm-cod. | τὴν μαρ- 
τυριαν S BK LP al. longe. plur. cat. sah. syr. arm. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. 
Aug.]+7ov θεου A al. plus” vg. cop. aeth. :+ezws m. | αὐτὼ ABK LP 
al. fere.54 cat. Thphyl.] εαυτω & al. mutid Cyr. Oec. | μη] om. 75 115 (310) | 
τω θεω S BK Lal. longe. plur. cat. boh-codd, syr. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. 
Aug. Vig.] Tw ww A 5. 27. 29. 66** al. plus’? vg. syr. : Tw vw Tov Ov 56 sah. 
arm. boh-ed. //7o ezus aeth. : Iesu Christo m: om. am.* | avrov] dem 
m sah, | ov πεπιστευκεν 8% Β Κὶ L Petc.] οὐκ ἐπιστευκεν N: οὐκ επιστευσεν 
A 5. 33. 34 ds" | εἰς 2°—nv] Deo gué arm-cod. | ἐμαρτυρηκεν ὃ | om. ὁ 
eos 4 ds jst vg. codd. aeth. Cyr. Aug. Vig. 


11. At last the witness, some of the essential characteristics 
of which have been already described, is actually defined. So 
far the writer has only taught his readers that it is Divine 
witness, borne by a father to his son, and that those who 
believe on the son have it in themselves, as a possession which 
experience has made part of themselves. Now he definitely 
states in what it consists. God bore witness to His Son when 
He gave life to men,—that higher spiritual life which they can 
realize and make their own only in so far as they unite them- 
selves to Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. 

αὕτη. - - ὅτι] Cf. Jn. ili, 19 (αὕτη δέ ἐστιν 7 κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς 
ἐλήλυθεν κιτ.λ.}; 1 Jn. v. 14, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ παρρησία... ὅτι ἐάν 
τι αἰτώμεθα. .. ἀκούει ἡμῶν. The constructions with ἵνα, and 
with the nominative, are rather common in S. John. 

The witness which God bore consisted in the fact that He 
gave life to men, by sending His Son that men might have life 
in Him. Cf. Jn. x. το, ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσιν καὶ περισσὸν 
ἔχωσιν. The sending of the Son on a mission, truly character- 
ized by the Water of the Baptism and the Blood shed on the 
Cross, and of which the object was to implant a new life in men, 
was the witness borne by God to the nature and character of 
Jesus of Nazareth. 

ζωὴν αἰώνιον] The anarthrous phrase emphasizes character or 
quality. The gift was something which is best described as 
** spiritual life.” 

ἔδωκεν] The tense emphasizes the fact, apart from its conse-. 
quences. The reference is to the historic fact of the mission of 
Him who came by Water and by Blood. 


11.159} NOTES ON I JOHN IAI 


ἡμῖν] We Christians. The gift of life is a witness only where 
it has been received. 

καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ «.1.A.] This clause is part of the “ witness,” 
not an additional statement made about the life. The witness 
is the gift of a life which is zz the Son. 


εδωκεν] δεδωκεν 69. 99 aS 500 | 0 Geos B 31. 38. 137 hs syr?] 
post ἡμιν NAKLP al. pler. cat. vg. syr. arm. | avry]teorw A | om. 
εστιν A 100. 


12. This verse explains more fully the last clause of the 
preceding verse. It is probably of the nature of an appeal to 
the reader’s experience. ‘Those who lived with Christ on earth 
found that they gained from Him a new power which trans- 
formed their life into a new and higher life. And the later 
generations had similar experience by which to judge, though 
they had not actually companied with Him during His life on 
earth. 

ὃ μὴ ἔχων «.t.A.] In the negative statement there are two 
slight changes which have their significance: (1) The addition 
of τοῦ θεοῦ to τὸν υἱόν. God is the source of life. The Son of 
God alone can give it to men. He that cannot gain it from that 
source cannot find it. (2) The position of τὴν ζωήν, which is 
placed before the verb, and thus becomes more emphatic. 
Whatever else the man may have in the way of higher endow- 
ments, spiritual life is not within his grasp. In the positive 
statement the emphasis was laid on the actual possession (ἔχει 
τὴν ζωήν). We have here another close parallel with the Gospel 
(see Jn. 111. 36). 

ὁ μὴ ἔχων] The negative (μή) generalizes the statement. A 
class of men is described who are distinguished by this 
characteristic. 

Tov wov 1°]+7Tov Beov 8. 25. 34. 69 as boh-codd. | την ἕωην 1°] 

Tov voy 31: ζωην αιωνιον 75 9 (480) : - αὐτου Ὁ (154) 7" 354 (137) | om. 


του θεου vg. (am. demid.) arm-codd. Aug. Tert. [τὴν ζωὴν 2°] post 
exer 2° 70 637 (1149) :+aurov O48 7. 364, 


13-17. I have written thus about belief in Jesus as the Son 
of God, and the witness of the Spirit, and the witness of God, 
which consists in the life which He gave to men through Jesus 
Christ, in order that you might feel assurance as to the possession 
of true life, you who believe in Jesus who is the Son of God. 
Such confidence is realized in prayer, in knowing by experience 
that, whenever we ask anything of God according to His will, He 
hears our prayer. And if we are thus conscious that God has 
heard, we already possess, in anticipation, the thing we asked 
for. The Almighty Sovereign has said, “ Let it be,” there is no 
further doubt about the matter, even though actual possession 


142 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [ν. 18. 


may be delayed for long years. This is more clearly seen in 
intercession for the brethren. If any man see his fellow-Christian 
sinning, so long as his sinning is not such as leads inevitably to 
final separation from Christ and the life which God gives in Him, 
he will naturally intercede for him, and will gain life for him, 
even if it be long delayed, in the case of all whose sin is not 
unto death. There is sin which must lead, if persisted in, to 
final exclusion from life. I do not say that this comes within 
the sphere of Christian intercession. But in any case there is 
full scope for intercession. For all unrighteousness is sin, and 
there is such a thing as sin which does not necessarily lead to 
final exclusion from life. 

ταῦτα ἔγραψα] Cf. ii. 26, where the reference is clearly to the 
preceding section about the False Teachers. Cf. also ii. 14, 
which the triple ἔγραψα probably refers to that part of the Epistle 
which had already been written. The present verse does not 
really present an exact parallel to the conclusion of the Gospel 
(Jn. xx. 31) which immediately precedes the appendix (ch. xxi.). 
Even if the reference is to the whole Gospel and not to the σημεῖα 
recorded in ch. xx., that reference is determined by the preceding 
words (ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ). Here it 
would seem most natural to refer the words to the preceding 
section of the Epistle (v. 1-12), in which the writer has put 
forward his view of Faith in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, 
as the necessary condition of the realization of that spiritual life 
which God has given to men through Jesus Christ, and which 
again is the real witness of God to the nature and character 
of His Son. The following explanation of ὑμῖν as those who 
believe in the zame of the Son of God, makes the reference to 
the whole of this section almost certain. 

ὑμῖν «.7.A.] For the separation of the explanatory clause (rots 
πιστεύουσιν K.T.A.), Cf. ver. 16, δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν 
μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, where the change in number creates a still 
greater strangeness of expression, and Jn. i. 12, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς 
ἐξούσιαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 

This separation of τοῖς πιστεύουσιν κιτ.λ. from ὑμῖν has led 
to several attempts to improve the text: (1) The clause τοῖς 
πιστεύουσιν . . . θεοῦ has been added immediately after ὑμῖν in the 
Receptus. (2) This clause has been retained in its proper place ; 
but for τοῖς πιστεύουσιν has been substituted (a) the nominative, 
of πιστεύοντες, or (2) a second final clause, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε. The 
nominative (24) is found with and without the insertion of a 
clause, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, etc., immediately after ὑμῖν. Thus, on 
the assumption that the reading of B (ὑμῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν 
ἔχετε αἰώνιον τοῖς πιστεύουσιν «.7.A.) is original, the genesis of the 
other variants can be easily explained. The parallels quoted 


V. 18, 14.] NOTES ON I JOHN 143 


above show that it presents a text completely in harmony with 
the writer’s style. 

ἵνα εἰδῆτε] Cf. 11. 1, ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε, and 11]. 24, ἐν τούτῳ 
γινώσκομεν. There are many signs in the Epistle of the writer’s 
consciousness that his readers’ loss of their first enthusiasm and 
zeal for the Christian faith had led to their feeling uncertain 
about their position. They lacked “assurance.” 

εἰδῆτε] The knowledge which they need must be intuitive. 
If they realize who and what the Christ is, and the relation in 
which they stand to Him, they will at once ‘‘ perceive and know” 
that they are in possession of life. 

πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα] Cf. ver. 10 and Jn. ii. 23. The 
phrase must imply devotion to a person possessed of the qualities 
which his name denotes. It is unlikely that πιστεύειν is used 
with the two constructions (ας. dat., eis ¢. acc.) in the same passage 
in exactly the same sense. Here the full force of the construc- 
tion with εἰς is needed to bring out the sense. The know- 
ledge follows as a matter of course where the self-surrender is 
complete. 


ταυτα] pr. και 79 358 (56) | eypawa] post yuw HO (Ψ) | yw δὲ Α ΒῊ 5. 
6. 13%4 29. 66**. 81. 142. 162 vg. sah. cop. syr. arm. aeth. Cassiod.]+ rors 
πιστευουσιν εἰς TO ονομὰ Tov wow Tov θεου K LP al. pler. cat. Thphyl. 
Oec. :-Ἐτοις πιστευουσιν 126 | exere AB al. sat. mu. cat. vg. syr? Cassiod. ] 
habemus arm-codd.: post αἰωνιον NK LP al. plus®® Thphyl. Oec. | τοις 
πιστευουσιν S* B syr.] οἱ πιστευοντες 8° A 5. 6. 13. 29, 66**. 81. 142. 162. 
vg. cop. aeth. : και wa moreunre K 1, Phal. pler. cat. arm. Thphyl. Occ. 
(πιστευσητε h 37. 57: om. καὶ 57 arm-codd.). 


14. καὶ αὕτη] The object of the preceding section was to 
produce assurance in the readers that they were in possession of 
the new life. This assurance is now described as παρρησία, 
boldness or confidence, with perhaps special reference to the 
original meaning of the word, absolute freedom of speech. It is 
said to consist in the fact that God hears them whenever they 
ask anything according to His will, ze. it is realized in true 
prayer, which always brings with it the consciousness that it is 
heard. This is the fourth mention of the Christian’s confidence ; 
we have it twice in relation to the Judgment (ii. 28, iv. 17), and 
twice in relation to prayer (iii. 21 and here). 

ἣν ἔχομεν πρὸς αὐτόν] which we have and enjoy in realized 
fellowship with God. In describing relations, πρός generally 
denotes that which “goes out towards,” a relation realized in 
active intercourse and fellowship. Cf. Jn. i. 1, 2; Mk. vi. 3 (οὐκ 
εἰσὶν. . . ὧδε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ; living our life). 

ὅτι] One of the common constructions used by the writer to 
introduce the description of that to which αὕτη, or ἐν τούτῳ, or 
some such expression refers. Our παρρησία with God is based 


144 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [v. 14, 15. 


on the fact that He hears whatsoever we ask κατὰ τὸ θέλημα 
αὑτοῦ. 

ἐάν τι κιτιλ.] The necessary condition of the hearing ; subject 
to this condition, that it is not in opposition to the Divine will, 
the hearing is assured whatever the petition may be. 

αἰτώμεθα] The more subjective form of expression is chosen. 
But it is doubtful whether any definite and clear difference in 
meaning between the middle and the active can be pressed. 
Cf. Mt. xx. 20, 22 (airotoa . . . αἰτεῖσθε) ; Jn. xvi. 24, 26 (οὐκ 
ἠτήσατε. .. αἰτεῖτε. . . ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου αἰτήσεσθε). 

κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ] Cf. Jn. xiv. 13, ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ 
ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω. 

ἀκούει ἡμῶν] Cf. Jn. ix. 31, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ὃ θεὸς ἁμαρτωλῶν οὐκ 
ἀκούει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐάν τις θεοσεβὴς ἢ . . . τούτου ἀκούει: Jn. xi. 4If.; 
Ps. xvi. (xvii.) 6. The word naturally includes the idea of 
hearing favourably. 


exwpev A al. pauc. | ore εαν τι NBK LP al. pler. sah. syr. arm.] ore 
oeay 13 arm.(uid.) sah. boh.: οτι αν A: οτι εαν 31*. 68. 191. 58'ect ΙΕ 
αιτωμεθα] αἰτωμεν 48 6502 (522) θελημα] ονομα A aeth. | αὐτου] του θῦ 18 
(236) > 2098. (386). 


15. ἐὰν οἴδαμεν] For the indicative after ἐάν, cf. 1 Th. iii. 8, 
ἐὰν στήκετε, and J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek, 
p. 168, where among others the following instances from papyri 
are quoted, ἐὰν det, ἐὰν οἶδεν, ἐὰν δ᾽ εἰσίν, ἐὰν φαίνεται. 

Our consciousness that we are heard in whatsoever we ask, 
the necessary condition not being repeated, brings with it a 
consciousness of possession. In the certainty of anticipation 
there is a kind of possession of that which has been granted, 
though our actual entering upon possession may be indefinitely 
delayed. God has heard the petition: the things asked for, for 
which we have asked not without effect (ἡτήκαμεν), are in a sense 
already ours. This is perhaps the most natural explanation of 
the verse. 

But it is possible that the writer, while meditating after his 
wont on the subject of prayer, is trying to find expression for a 
view of prayer which gives a more literal meaning to the words 
ἔχομεν τὰ αἰτήματα. In the preceding verse he has laid stress on 
the fact that what he has to say applies only to such prayers as 
are offered κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ. ‘This excludes any prayer 
which is the expression of the supplicant’s own wish on any 
subject, except in so far as it is identical with the will of God on 
that subject. He may therefore have thought of true prayer as 
including only requests for knowledge of, and acquiescence in, 
the will of God in the matter with which the prayer is con- 
cerned, rather than as a statement of the supplicant’s wish, 


σ. 15, 16.] NOTES ON I JOHN 145 


accompanied by a readiness to give it up, if it is in opposition 
to God’s will. In the case of such prayers the supplicant can 
enter into immediate and conscious possession of the thing asked 
for, whether the answer to his own formulated or felt wish be yes 
or no. The statement may be literally true οἴδαμεν ὅτι τὰ 
αἰτήματα ἔχομεν. Cf. Mk. xi. 24. 
αἰτήματα] Here only in the Johannine writings. Cf. Lk. 
XXill. 24, ἐπέκρινεν γενέσθαι τὸ αἴτημα αὐτῶν : Ph. iv. 6, τὰ αἰτήματα 
ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 
ἠτήκαμεν] The voice and tense emphasize the objective fact 
and its results. 
ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ] The Received Text has altered this into the 
commoner παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Cf., however, 1 Jn. i. 5, ii. 20, 27, Iv. 21; 
3 Jn 7. Inthe Gospel παρά is the commoner usage in similar 
contexts. Thus the reading of δὲ B is truer to the style of the 
Epistle, while the usage of the Gospel has apparently influenced 
the later text. 
om. kar. . . ἥμων N* A τοῦ, 96* | οἰδαμεν 1°] ιἰδωμεν N° | om. ἐὰν 1° 
vg. Did. | 0] ore 78 δ451-110. $463 (209) | eay 25] αν AB K al. sat. mu. Oec. | 
αἰτωμεθα] αιτησωμεθα 75 δΨὁὅ8. (090 2) | exwuev HS* 8 (NM) [2 1: 70. 6353 
| αἰτηματα] ἡμῶν 75 115 (319) sah | ἡτησαμεν 75 2 64 (83) AP (36) 
7>78if (_) (ητηκαμεν expl. sah”) | ar NS B 5. 13 al.®] παρ AKL P al. 
pler. cat. | am αὐτου] a Domino sah. 


16, 17. Intercession naturally finds its most obvious sphere 
in the new society itself. The writer therefore goes on to state 
its possibilities and its limitations. If any member of the body 
sees that his brother is committing sin, so long as it be not of 
such a character as must inevitably lead to final separation from 
the life of God, it goes without saying that he will exercise his 
power of intercession for him. And such is the power of inter- 
cession that he will be able to gain for him life, in every case 
where the sin is of the character described. ‘There zs such a 
thing as sin unto death, which tends to final separation from 
God, and which if persisted in must inevitably lead to that 
result. It is not clear that in such a case appeal can be made 
to the Common Father on behalf of a fellow-Christian. For 
such an one it may be that prayer can only be offered as for one 
who has forfeited his Christian privileges. But all injustice, 
every failure to maintain in our action right relations with God 
or with man, is sin. There is sin which is not of the fatal and 
final character described above. So there is plenty of scope 
left for the exercise of brotherly intercession. 

ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν] cf. Ly. v. 6, περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ ἧς 
ἥμαρτεν : Ezk. xviii. 24, ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτοῦ αἷς ἥμαρτεν. The 
accusative is added here because of the qualifying clause which 
succeeds (μὴ πρὸς θάνατον). It does not strengthen the verb. 


Io 


146 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [v. 16. 


The present participle, “sinning a sin” (RV.), perhaps indicates 
seeing the sinner ἐπαυτοφώρῳ. 

ἐάν τις ἴδη] The subjunctive with ἐάν simply states the 
possibility. 

μὴ πρὸς θάνατον] The μή is naturally used after ἐάν ; it can 
hardly be pressed to make the judgment subjective, that of the 
τις. : 
αἰτήσει] The future is used either for the imperative, or 
because it is assumed as a matter of course that the brother will 
intercede for the brother. 

δώσει] The subject of the verb may be either God, or the 
man who intercedes. The abrupt change of subject which the 
former view would require is perhaps decisive against it. And 
in virtue of his intercession and its power the Christian may be 
said to “give” life. Cf. Ja. v. 15, ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως σώσει TOV 
κάμνοντα, and (ver. 20) σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου. 

τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν] For the construction, cf. ver. 13. 

ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον] The phrase is probably suggested 
by the Old Testament conception of sins 7197 1.3 (Nu. xv. 30, cf. 31 
(σὸν 2} Salata} wasn ΠΙ3)), 4 mea) Ta nvyn alas Ὁ Ξ3ΠῚ 


Deliberate and wilful ee ἢ as opposed to sins committed 
unwittingly, were punished by the cutting off of the sinner ‘from 
among his people.” We may also compare Nu. xvill. 22, where 
it is said that after the setting apart of the Levites for the 
service of the Tabernacle, any of the people who came near to 
the Tabernacle of the Congregation would be guilty of sin and 


die, mm> xn ΠΝ ayia Snieos ΝΣ a ἫΝ ἸΔΊΡΝ ΝΡ, 


which is translated in the LXX, καὶ οὐ προσελεύσονται ἔ ἔτι οἱ υἱοὶ 
Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου λαβεῖν ἁμαρτίαν θανατηφόρον, 


with which may be compared the Targum (Onk.) no? main Nbape. 


It is probable that in Rabbinic thought the words nyo swn'were 
taken closely together, though this is against the meaning and 
pointing of the Hebrew text. ‘There may therefore be a direct 
connection between the verse and the words in Nu. xvili. 22. 
Cf. the note on ver. 17. 

The form of expression would seem to indicate that the 
author is not thinking of one particular sin, definite though un- 
named. ‘‘There is such a thing as sin which leads to death.” 
Such a s¢a¢e of sin may find expression in different acts. In the 
author’s view any sin which involves a deliberate rejection of 
the claims of the Christ may be described as “unto death.” If 
persisted in it must lead to final separation from the Divine life. 
Πρὸς θάνατον must, of course, denote a tendency in the direction 
of death, and not an attained result. The whole phrase thus 


Vv. 16.] NOTES ON I JOHN 147 


suggests a “kind of sinning” (if the phrase may be allowed) 
rather than any definite act of sin, which leads inevitably in a 
certain direction. Its only possible issue, if it is persisted in, 
must be spiritual death. Deliberate rejection of Christ and 
His claims was probably most prominent in the writer’s thought. 
It is, of course, possible that in connection with what he has said 
in the earlier part of this chapter about the witness of the Spirit, 
he may have had in view the saying of the Lord recorded in Mk. 
ill. 29 (Mt. xii. 32; Lk. xii. 10). But nothing in this passage 
offers any clear proof of such a connection. 

οὐ περὶ ἐκείνης κιτιλ.] The writer does not forbid such interces- 
sion. He merely abstains from commanding it. Such cases lay 
outside the normal sphere of Christian intercession. ‘They must 
be left to God alone. Ifthe meaning often attributed to ἐρωτᾶν 
as distinguished from αἰτεῖν, ‘‘the request which is based upon 
fellowship, upon a likeness of position,” is to be pressed, the 
words contain their own justification. Prayer of “brother for 
brother, as such, addressed to the Common Father,” is out of 
the question where brotherhood has been practically renounced. 
But this interpretation, which emphasizes not that which the 
petitioner has in common with him to whom he makes his 
request, but rather with those on whose behalf he prays, is very 
doubtful. And the distinction itself between αἰτεῖν, the seeking 
of the inferior from the superior, and ἐρωτᾶν, which is said to 
imply a certain equality or familiarity between the parties (see 
Trench, Syzonyms, ὃ xl.), is far from being certainly established. 
The distinction drawn by Dr. Ezra Abbott between αἰτεῖν, ‘‘to 
ask for something to be given (not done), the emphasis being on 
the thing asked,” and ἐρωτᾶν, ‘to request a person to do (rarely 
give) something, the emphasis being thus on the person re- 
quested,” is perhaps more naturally applicable here. We may 
hesitate to entreat God to act on behalf of one who has 
practically renounced his allegiance. But the difference in 
meaning and usage between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν is not very clear. 
And the evidence of the papyri, while it shows clearly that 
ἐρωτᾶν was the natural word to use in invitations, and to that 
extent supports the former of the two distinctions which have 
been maintained, does not help much in settling the question. 


t6n] εἰδὴ 13 vg. Hil. Aug.: oder 75. 1175 (319) | auapravovra] αμαρτη- 
σαντα 70 5368 ($23) | μη 1°] την 22 (217) αἰτησει και δωσει] αἰτησις Kae 
δωσις δὰ  : petat (petet ἴα. : petzt am. harl.) σέ dabitur vg. Cf. Tert. sah. 
cop.: fetat pro co et dabit. . . deus tol. | δωσει] dabunt boh | fwnv] + 
eternam boh-codd. | ros apapravovow μη προς θανατον τοις μὴ ἁμαρτανουσιν 
ἀμαρτιαᾳν μὴ προς θανατον A: ειεαγιέξ non ad uitum vg.: sed non his 
gui usgue ad mortem peccant tol. | αἰτησει]- τον θν 75 *f (133) αὐτω] post 
(goa 172 2 {ττοὴ 71 95 (PR Coser, αὐτῶ CPE Ve ote A (rola ποιοῖ. 
θανατον 2°] τω μὴ προς θανατον amapravovre 75 *4 (137) | ayapria] pr. ἡ 


148 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [v. 17, 18. 


75 118 (156) | ov περι] ὑπερ 75 364 (137) | ov] pr. καὶ 13. 57!ect 5Slect | ἐερωτηση] 
ερωτησει K*: ερωτησης N° arm. : pr. Tis 15. 26. 36. 43. 98. ΙΟΙ ds* vg. syr. 
Clem. Or. Tert. 


17. πᾶσα ἀδικία] Unrighteousness is one manifestation of 
sin, just as lawlessness is another. The most natural interpreta- 
tion of the verse is that which sees in it a statement of the wide 
scope which exists for the exercise of Christian intercession, in 
spite of certain necessary limitations of its sphere. Windisch 
suggests that the difficulty might be removed by placing ver. 17 
before τός (ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον). 

καί ἐστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον] The fact is stated object- 
ively (od). The distinction between sins ‘‘ unto death” and “not 
unto death” is illustrated by Schottgen from Rabbinic writers. 
His first quotation, however, from Yoma 50. 1, is not convincing 


(anid xb en ΣῪ nxon ond mya ynov neon), as mNpn 
seems to refer to the animal offered or set apart as a sin-offering 
(see Goldschmid). The expression in Sota 48. 1, ΠΝ pyy 12 w&, 
offers a more satisfactory parallel. 


mavra [ὃ πασα] pr. apa J*o44. 175 (794) | αδικια] post apapria 1° A δ 
(WY): 2 custztza arm-ed. | om. ov 13. 67**. vg. sah. syr. arm. aeth. Tert. 


18. οἴδαμεν] Cf. iii, 2, 14. The knowledge is intuitive. 
That which is stated follows immediately from the very nature 
of God, and of the life which He has given to men. 

πᾶς ὃ yeyevynpevos k.7.A.] Cf. iii, 9. The perfect expresses 
the abiding results of the ‘“begetting.” In so far as they are 
realized they exclude the possibility of sin. Following his 
usual custom, the writer states the truth absolutely, without 
stating the modifications which become necessary as it is 
applied to individual cases in actual experience. The preceding 
section as well as the early part of the Epistle sufficiently shows 
that he recognized the actual fact of sin in Christians. 

ὃ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ] If the reading ἑαυτόν be adopted, 
the meaning must be that he who has once for all experienced 
the new birth keeps himself from the evil in virtue of the power 
which the new birth places within his reach. In the first clause 
of the verse the permanent consequences of the initial act are 
emphasized ; here the stress is laid on the act itself. The fact 
of the new birth enables him to keep himself free from the 
attacks of the evil one. This sense is not badly expressed in 
the paraphrase of the Vulgate, ‘‘sed generatio Dei conseruat 
eum,” a rendering which may have been influenced by the 
similar passage in 11]. 9, πᾶς ὃ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν 
οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει. It is found in Greek 
(ἡ γέννησις) in two cursives. 

The reading, however, of B and the original hand of A (αὐτόν) 


Vv. 18.] NOTES ON I JOHN 149 


has strong claims to be regarded as original. It is difficult to 
see why ἑαυτόν should ever have been altered into αὐτόν, which 
is apparently far more difficult, unless, indeed, the change was 
due to accidental carelessness at a very early stage in the trans- 
mission of the text. And the evidence of the Latin, supported 
as it now is by two Greek cursives, is of considerable importance 
in favour of this reading (generatio Det conseruat eum vg., cf. 
natiuitas Det custodit illum Chromatius). 

If αὐτόν is original, it can hardly be explained, as Weiss 
suggests, by referring the phrase ὃ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ““ directly 
to the fact of the begetting from God, which keeps him who 
has experienced it.” ‘This would be a very strained expedient. 
It is still more unnatural to refer αὐτόν to God, as Karl does (Der 
aus Gott gezeugte halt thn (seine Gebote). 'Τηρεῖ αὐτόν cannot 
mean “observes His commandments.” With an accusative of 
the person τηρεῖν always has the sense in the N.T. of watching 
or guarding, in a friendly or hostile spirit. It would be far 
better to read αὗτόν (cf. Jn. il. 24, οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὑτόν). 

But no explanation of the change from the perfect to the 
aorist participle is altogether satisfactory, if both are referred to 
the same person, Ζ.6. the man who has experienced the new birth. 
The interpretation, therefore, which refers ὃ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ 
to Christ deserves serious consideration. It is true that the 
expression γεννηθῆναι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ is not used elsewhere in the 
Johannine writings of Christ, unless the Western variant in 
Jn. 1. 13, ὃς. .. ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθη, for which there is interesting 
Patristic evidence in the second century, is to be regarded as 
original. We may also compare Jn. xvill. 37, ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο 
γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and the language 
of the Messianic Psalm, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε, which has 
some claim to represent the true text in Lk. iii. 22. Thus inter- 
preted the passage has a fairly close parallel in Jn. xvii. 15, ἵνα 
τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, and ver. 12, ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν 
τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι καὶ ἐφύλαξα καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν 
ἀπώλετο. Cf. Apoc, ili, 10, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ 
πειρασμοῦ. 

It may be noticed that τηρεῖν is never used in the Johannine 
writings with the accusative of the reflex pronoun, or in the 
N.T. with such an accusative absolutely. Cf. 2 Co. xi. 9, 
ἀβαρῆ ἐμαυτὸν ἐτήρησα: τ Ti. ν. 22, σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει: Ja. 1. 
27, ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν : Jude 21, ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε. 
An interesting article in support of the reference to Christ was 
contributed by Wohlenberg to the Weue Kirchliche Zeitung in 
1902 (p. 233 ff.). 

ἅπτεται] The word probably suggests the idea of laying hold 
of in order to harm. Cf. Gn. xxvi. 11; Jos. ix. 25 (19); Jer. iv. 


150 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [V. 18-20. 


10; 4 Mac. x.4; Ps. civ. (cv.) 15. Schlatter quotes from Siphre 
to Nu. vi. 26, ὉΠΞ pair jOwWT PN. 


οιδαμεν oda 75 391 (96) : + de 70 87 (353) | γεγενημενος 99 jst | 0 γεννήθεις 
ex] ἡ γεννησις 7114. 116 (335): generatzo vg. | γεννηθει5] γεγεννήμενος 
7511... 7 114 (252) | τηρει] μαρτυρει | 7 65 (522) | avrov A* Β 105 vg.] 
eavrov N Ac= Καὶ L Ρ ἃ]. pler. cat. Or. Eph. Thphyl. Oec. 


19. οἴδαμεν] Cf. the notes on ver. 18. What has been stated 
generally (πᾶς 6 γεγεννημένος x.7.X.) is now applied to the readers 
themselves, with whom the writer identifies himself (οἴδαμεν). 

Εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ denotes, as elsewhere in the Johannine 
writings, the state which is the consequence of the γεννηθῆναι ἐκ 
τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. Jn. vill. 47; 1 Jn. iv. 4-6. 

καί] The clause is probably to be regarded as added inde- 
pendently, and not as subordinate to the ὅτι. 

6 κόσμος ὅλος] The world as a whole, in its entirety, if the 
expression is to be distinguished from ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου (ii. 2), “ the 
whole world.” 

ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ] The preceding 6 πονηρός determines that 
this is masculine and not neuter, as Rothe suggests. For 
the construction, cf. Soph. O. C. 247, ἐν ὑμῖν ὡς θεῷ κείμεθα 
t\apoves. Christians are conscious, immediately and intuitively, 
of the difference between the power which dominates their 
life and that which controls absolutely the life, intellectual and 
moral, of the world, 24. of the world of men so far as they 
remain estranged from God. 


ovdapev]+ de 104 cs boh-ed. | odos] om. boh-cod. | ev] em 31. 


20. ἥκει] Cf. Jn. viii. 42, ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω. The Christ, the 
Son of God, has fulfilled His mission. He has done the work 
which is characterized by His name, and the effects of it are 
with us still. 

διάνοιαν] Cf. Eph. iv. 18, ἐσκοτισμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ (in Eph. 1. 
18, quoted by Holtzmann, the true text has καρδίας not διανοίας), 
1 P. i. 13, τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν : Pr. 11. το, ἔλθῃ ἡ σοφία 
εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν. The word is not found elsewhere in the Johan- 
nine writings. The faculty of knowing, or discerning, seems to 
be what it expresses. It is worth noting that γνῶσις also is 
absent from the Johannine writings, and νοῦς occurs only twice 
(Rev. xili. 18, xvii. 9). 

iva γινώσκομεν] The indicative, or at least the short ο, is 
well supported here, as in Jn. xvii. 33 ἵνα γινώσκουσι receives 
considerable support (A Ὁ G L Y A A 33), and in that case the 
form can hardly be regarded as a “‘corrupt pronunciation” of 
the subjunctive. For ἵνα with the future indicative, cf. Mk. xv. 20, 
iva σταυρώσουσιν (v./.): Lk. xiv. το, Wa... ἐρεῖ σοι: Xx. 10, ἵνα 


V. 20.] NOTES ON I JOHN I51 


. δώσουσιν αὐτῷ : Jn. vil. 3, ἵνα καὶ of μαθηταί cov θεωρήσουσιν : 
XVil. 2, Wa... δώσει (v.2) αὐτοῖς : Ac. v. 15, Wa... ἐπισκιάσει 
(υ.4): ΧΧΙ. 24, ἵνα ξυρήσονται: 1 Co. ἴα 18; war, » θήσω: (?) ix. 
21, iva κερδανῶ : xill. 3, ἵνα καυθήσομαι (2. ἢ: Gal. il. 4, ἵνα ἡμᾶς 
καταδουλώσουσιν : ἘΠ 1, wa... avev λόγου κερδηθήσονται.: 
Αρος. iii. 9, ἵνα ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν : vi. 4, ἵνα ἀλλήλους 
σφάξουσιν : vi. ττ, ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται (v./.): ν11]. 3, ἵνα δώσει: ix. 5, ἵνα 
βασανισθήσονται : xiii. 12, ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν : XIV. 13; ἵνα ἀναπαή- 
σονται: ΧΧΙΪ. 14, ἵνα ἔσται : ix. 4, ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσι : 1X. 20, ἵνα μὴ 
προσκυνήσουσιν. For its use with the present indicative the evi- 
dence is less clear, as in most cases there are variant readings. Cf. 
(besides Jn. xvii. 3) Jn. iv. 15, ἵνα. . . μηδὲ διέρχομαι (0...) : ν. 20, 
iva ὑμεῖς θαυμάζετε (v./.): Gal. iv. 17, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε: Tit. ii. 
4, ἵνα σωφρονίζουσι (v./.): Apoc. xii. 6, ἵνα ἐκεῖ τρέφουσιν αὐτήν 
(v.2.): Gal. vi. 12, ἵνα μὴ διώκονται (v.2.): Apoc. xili. 17, ἵνα μή τις 
δύναται (τ.1.); in 2 P. i. το the reading is found in some MSS, 
σπουδάσατε iva διὰ TOV καλῶν ὑμῶν ἔργων βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν 
καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθε. The same uncertainty is found in sub- 
Apostolic writers. Preuschen quotes Barn. vi. 5 ; Ign. 221. iv. 2 ; 
Tr. vili. 2 (Handworterbuch, p. 530). On the whole, the evidence 
seems to point to traces of the occasional use of a vulgarism 
subsequently corrected. There is much to be said for Professor 
Deissmann’s view, that the Fourth Gospel is “ein echtes Volks- 
buch” (Bettrage zur Wetterentwicklung der Religion, p. 131). 

ἵνα x.t-A.] The clause is dependent on διάνοιαν, which it 
explains, not on δέδωκεν. 

τὸν ἀληθινόν] 2.6. God, the One who alone completely corre- 
sponds to His ‘‘Name,” in whom the idea is completely 
realized. The attempt to make God the subject of δέδωκεν, 
notwithstanding the preceding ἥκει, and to interpret τὸν ἀληθινόν 
of Christ, hardly needs serious refutation, in spite of the support 
which it receives from Bengel. 

The God who “‘fulfils the highest conception” of Godhead 
can only be known through the faculty of discernment givén to 
men by His own Son, by means of His historic appearance on 
earth. The writer is already mentally contrasting the true with 
the false conceptions of God against which he warns his readers 
in the last verse of the Epistle. 

kal ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ] ἀληθινός must have the same 
reference here as in the preceding clause. It can only refer to 
God. The nearest parallel to the language of this verse is to be 
found in Jn. xvii. 3, ἵνα γινώσκουσίν σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν Kat 
ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: 22f. ἵνα ὦσιν ἕν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν. 
ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα Gow τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν. There 
is really no difficulty in supposing that a writer who makes use 
of the phrase ἔχειν τὸν πατέρα should use the words εἶναι ἐν τῷ 


152 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [V. 20. 


ἀληθινῷ with reference to God. This interpretation is supported 
by the following clause. ΤῸ interpret the words ἐν τῷ vid αὐτοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ as being in apposition to ev τῷ ἀληθινῷ, appended 
in order to leave no doubt as to the change of reference in τῷ 
ἀληθινῷ, is far less natural than to find in these words (ἐν τῷ υἱῷ 
x.7.4.) a description of the method in which union with God is 
realized. ‘The Thebaic (Sahidic) version has ‘‘in the Life” for 
ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ : with which should be compared the reading of 
some MSS of the Bohairic (see the critical note). 

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ “I. Χ.] The difficulty of regarding these words 
as being in apposition to ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, added so as to make it 
clear who is meant by that phrase, has been already stated so 
far as it affects the meaning of 6 ἀληθινός in this verse. The 
grammatical difficulty of such an explanation is also very great. 
Αὐτοῦ naturally refers to the immediately preceding τῷ ἀληθινῷ. 
To pass over the natural antecedent and make it refer to τὸν 
ἀληθινόν, which is not even the subject of the principal sentence, 
is extremely harsh. 

Interpreted naturally, the words supply a needed explanation. 
It is in virtue of their relation to Christ, and their fellowship 
with Him, that Christians realize their fellowship with God. Cf. 
1 Jn. 1. 3, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς Kal μετὰ TOD 
υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. If the Christ of 5. John says (vi. 
44), οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός pe ἐὰν μὴ ὃ πατὴρ ὃ πέμψας pe 
ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, He also says (xiv. 6), οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα 
εἰ μὴ Ov ἐμοῦ. 

οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ἀληθινὸς θεός] If τῷ ἀληθινῷ be taken as 
referring to Christ, these words must also refer to Him. And in 
earlier times they were usually so interpreted. But it is hardly 
true to say that this interpretation is logically an absolute 
necessity (Weiss). It might, no doubt, be mere tautology to 
say of the ἀληθινός that He is ὃ ἀληθινὸς θεός. But οὗτος in the 
Gospel and Epistles is not used merely to avoid the repetition 
ofaname. It seems often to refer to the previous subject, as 
previously described. Here God has been described as truly 
made known in Jesus Christ. The God who completely fulfils 
the highest conception of Godhead is the God who has been 
revealed in Jesus Christ, as contrasted with all false conceptions 
of God, against which the readers are warned in the next verse. 
For this use of οὗτος, cf. Jn. i. 2, οὗτος ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 
the Logos who can be described as θεός ; i. 7, οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς 
μαρτυρίαν, the man sent contrasted with the Divine Logos; 1. 
33, οὗτός ἐστιν 6 βαπτίζων, He on whom the Spirit descended 
and remained ; 111. 2, οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτόν, the ruler of the Jews; 
iv. 47, the βασιλικός whose son was sick; τ Jn. il. 22, οὗτός ἐστιν 
ὁ ἀντίχριστος, he who denies that Jesus is the Christ; v. 6, οὗτός 


V. 20.] NOTES ON I JOHN 153 


ἐστιν ὃ ἐλθών, Jesus the Son of God; 2 Jn. 7, οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ 
πλάνος καὶ ὃ ἀντίχριστος, the representative of the class of 
deceivers who deny “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” 

καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος] This addition has often been held to render 
the reference of otros to Christ necessary, it being regarded as 
not accidental that in the Gospel it is only of Christ that it is said 
that He is life (xi. 25, xiv. 6). But the language of Jn. v. 26, 
ὃ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, justifies the expression here used if it 
refers to God. He is in the Johannine writings represented as 
the true source of spiritual life, which He has imparted to men 
in His Son. The writer would remind his readers that in spite 
of the claims to higher knowledge put forward by some, it 
remains true that He who hath not the Son hath not the Father. 
The God whom Jesus Christ revealed is the true source of 
life. 

Holtzmann aptly quotes 2 Jn. 7 as proof that in the Johannine 
writings οὗτος may refer to the subject of the preceding sentence 
rather than to the name which has immediately preceded 
(πολλοὶ πλάνοι. .. οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντις “I. X. ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί. 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος). The reference is naturally 
to the subject uppermost in the writer’s thoughts, and the 
contents of the preceding verses introduced by the triple 
οἴδαμεν make this plain: πᾶς 6 yeyevvypevos ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ... ἐκ 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμέν. .. ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν... καὶ ἐσμὲν 
ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷς It is God—the true One—of whom we have 
been begotten—of whom we are—whom Jesus Christ came to 
make known—so that men could enter into fellowship with Him. 


odauev δὲ δὲ BK al. sat. mu. cop. Thphyl. Oecec.] καὶ odapev A al.” 
cat. m’ vg. sah. syr. arm. Did. Cyr. : οἰδαμεν L P 4].9 aeth. Cyr. Did. : om. 
de [°4 (229) | ἠκει] Ἑ δέ carnem indutt nostri causa et passus est et 
resurrextt a mortuis ; adsumpstt nos ταῦ tol. Cf. Hil. quod filius dei uenit 
et concarnatus est propter vos et passus est, et resurgens de mortuis 
assumsit nos et dedit nobis intellectum optimum ut etc. | 0 wos] ο λογος 
Did. | dedwxev] εδωκεν A 5. 13. 69%. 104 aS cSt 4], aliq. Did. Cyr. 
| γινωσκομεν 8 A B* LP 98. 99. ΙΟΙ. 180 cS gscr* Cyr. ] γιωσκωμεν ΒΓ Καὶ 
al. pler. Did. Bas. Cyr. Thphyl. Oec. | τον αληθινον 8° BK L al. plur.] τὸ 
αληθινον δὲ sah. Vig. Facund.: eum guz uerus est m7. Cf. syr. arm. 
Cyr. Hil. Faustin. Fulg.]+deov A 5. 6. 7. 8. 13. 17. 27. 40. 66**. 69. 80. 
81. 98™Z gg. 106. aS d’ct al. fere.© vg, boh-ed. arm»s¢ aeth. Ath. Did, 
Bas. Cyr. Aug. Pelag. | καὶ ἐσμεν] καὶ wuev 34: e¢ stmus m’ vg. Hil. | 
ev TW adnOww] tm uzta sah.: in utta et haec utta erat boh-codd.: om. 
boh-ed. : ἐγ werbo m’ | om. ev Tw 2° 33. 34. 45. 56. 162 aSct* vg, m7 Did. 
Bas. Cyr. [σου χριστω τὲ BK LP al. pler. cat. m® demid. tol. syr. sah, 
cop. arm. aeth. Ath. Did. Hil. Aug. Pelag.] om. A 162 vg. am. fu. harl. [θεὸς 
om. m8 am. Hil. Vig. | ἕωη αἰωνιο9] ζωὴν αἰωνιον παρεχων HO (Ψ) : ἕξωη 
NAB 13. 34. 57. 66**. 105. 126. 180 al.!° Did. Ath. Bas. Cyr. Euthal.] 
fon ἡ K asc al. mu. Ath. Cyr.: ἡ ἕωη ἡ LP 5. 31. 38.40. 68. 69. 105. 
137. 191 al. cat. Ath. Cyr. Thphyl. | atwycos]+et resurrectio nostra m8 
Hil. Faustin. Vig. (+727 zfso Faustin.). 


154 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [v. 21, 


21. texvia] The writer’s favourite form of address to introduce 
an appeal. 

φυλάξατε ἑαυτά] If the use of the active with the reflexive 
can be regarded as “‘emphasizing the duty of personal effort,” it 
is significant. The danger is great. It needs all the effort 
which they can make to guard against it. With the peremptory 
aorist imperative, cf. ἐξάρατε (1 Co. v. 13), and ἐκτινάξατε 
(Mk. vi. 11). 

ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων] All the false images of God which men have 
made for themselves instead of accepting the true revelation of 
Him givenin His Son. The expression embraces all false concep- 
tions of God. It is not exhausted by the particular conceptions 
of the (Gnostic) false teachers against whose views the Epistle 
is directed. And it is not probable that the writer intends only 
actual objects of pagan worship, as Zahn suggests, finding in the 
verse an indication of the character of the readers to whom the 
Epistle is addressed (cf. also Windisch, ad éoc.). If any limited 
reference is necessary, it must be found in the untrue mental 
images fashioned by the false teachers. 


φυλαξασθαι H δ'8 (33) | eavra N* ΒΊῚ, 23. 29. 31 cSF 5Slect al. fere.1>] 
ταυτα 4’ δὲ (YW): eavrous N°A KP al. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec. | των] pr. 
παντων 6 δὲ (v) | εἰδωλων NAB 1. 13. 27. 29. 34. 65. 66**. 68 ds’ am, 
demid. tol. sah, boh, syr. arm, aeth.]+aunv K L P al. pler. vg. fu. harl. 


SEPARATE NOTE. 
Tue TExtT oF 1 JN. v. 7, 8. 


μαρτυροῦντες] - ev Tw ovpavw o πατὴρ o Aoyos και TO αγιον πνευμα 
και OUTOL τρεις εν εἰσὶ και τρεις εἰσιν OL μαρτυρουντες εν Τῇ γῆ ς΄. It 
is not necessary now to prove at any great length the spurious- 
ness of this interesting but unfortunate gloss. Its style and want 
of conformity to the context would be sufficient to condemn it, 
even if it had considerable support from trustworthy authorities for 
the text. Without it the passage runs clearly. The threefold 
witness is first given, which satisfies the requirements of the law ; 
and after the witness which is legally valid among men, is given 
the ‘‘ greater witness” of God, which is precisely defined in ver. 9, 
though the exact meaning of the words is doubtful. The 
“heavenly witnesses ” destroy the natural sequence of the passage. 
And the personal use of 6 Adyos is wholly alien to the style of the 
Epistle, and also of the Gospel, where it is confined to the 
Prologue. In the earliest form in which the words appear in 
Greek, the absence of articles and copulae, where Greek would 
require their presence, betrays at once their derivation from Latin. 


NOTES ON I JOHN 155 


It is enough to recapitulate the well-known and often stated facts 
that the words are not found (as part of the Johannine text) (1) in 
any Greek manuscript with the exception of two very late MSS, 
obviously modified by the text of the Latin Vulgate, and in the 
margin of a third, the marginal note being in a seventeenth 
century hand; (2) in any independent Greek writer; (3) in any 
Latin writer earlier than Priscillian; (4) in any ancient version 
except in the Latin, where it is absent from the older forms of 
the old Latin as found in Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine ; from 
the Vulgate as issued by Jerome, according to the testimony of 
the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis ; and from Alcuin’s revision 
(Codex Vallicellianus). And even when it first appears in the 
Vulgate, in the ‘‘Theodulfian” recension, the earthly witnesses 
are placed before the heavenly. 

The history of the gloss has been well told by Wettstein, 
Tischendorf, and Westcott, from whose work the accounts in 
most commentaries are obviously derived. New light has been 
thrown on the subject in the interesting monograph of Kinstle, 
Das comma Joanneum auf seine Herkunft untersucht, 1905), and 
some interesting suggestions as to the origin of the celebrated 
“Codex Britannicus,” on the authority of which Erasmus in 
fulfilment of his rash promise introduced the clause into the text 
of his Third Edition, by Dr. Rendel Harris in his Azstory of 
the Leicester Codex. 

The history of the gloss itself naturally begins much earlier 
than the history of its introduction into the actual text of the 
Epistle. 

The passage in Tertullian (adv. Praxeam, c. 25), which has 
often been quoted as containing an allusion to the verse, is really 
proof that he knew no such reading in the Epistle: “ita connexus 
patris in filio et filii in paraclito tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum 
ex altero, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est 
Ego et pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad 
numeri singularitatem.” 

Unfortunately there is no direct quotation of the passage in 
Cyprian: though the citation and interpretation of 1 Jn. v. 6-8 
in the pseudo-Cyprianic tract, de rebaptismate, c. 15, witnesses 
to the early Latin text, which has no trace of the heavenly wit- 
nesses. “Εἰ spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia spiritus 
est ueritas: quia tres testimonium perhibent, spiritus et aqua et 
sanguis, et isti tres (in)! unum sunt.” 

The well-known passage in Cyprian, de Catholicae ecclesiae 
unitate, c. 6, shows how easily the language of 1 Jn. v. 8 was 
interpreted of the Three Persons of the Trinity: “ dicit Dominus 
Ego et pater unum sumus et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 

1 See von Soden, Das Lat. N.T. in Afrika, p. 280. 


156 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


sancto scriptum est Et tres unum sunt.” In favour of this, 
which is the natural interpretation of Cyprian’s words, is the 
reference to him in Facundus, 270 defensione trium capit. i. 3, 
who, after giving the same interpretation of the Spirit and the 
water and the blood, adds, ‘Quod tamen Ioannis apostoli 
testimonium b. Cyprianus, Carthaginiensis antistes et martyr, in 
epistola siue libro quem de unitate sanctae ecclesiae scripsit, de 
patre et filio et spiritu sancto dictum intelligit.” 

Augustine’s interesting interpretation (Contra Maximinum, 11. 
22) of τ Jn. v. 8, which he quotes in the form “Tres sunt testes, 
spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt,” shows that this 
interpretation was traditional in his time, so that he can assume 
that the writer of the Epistle intended the “unum” to refer to 
the three persons symbolized by the Spirit, water, and blood, and 
not to the symbols, which are different in substance. Incidentally 
it shows also, of course, that the heavenly witnesses formed no 
part of his text. 

It may be worth while to quote from Berger’s Azstoire de la 
Vulgate the evidence from the passage which he has there 
collected. 

Leon Palimpsest (vii.): 

et sps est testit 
monium guia sps est ueritas® guoniam 
tres sunt qui test/montum dant in terra 
sps et agua et sanguis” et tres sunt 
qui test/monium aicunt in caelo pa 


ter e¢ uerbum et sps scs et hi tres unum 


sunt 7” xpo thu® si testimonium hominum 
AECIP at τς: 

Compl.? (Madrid Univ. Lib. 31) ix. ‘‘Quia tres sunt qui 
testimonium dant in terris, aqua sanguis et caro (mg. uel spiritus) 
et tria hec unum sunt et tria sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo 
Pater Verbum et Spiritus et hec tria unum sunt in Christo Jhesu.” 

Leg.! (Cathedral of Leon, 6) x. “‘Quia tres sunt qui testi- 
monium dant in terra Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tria haec 
unum sunt et tria sunt sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo 
Pater Verbum et Spiritus et hii tres unum sunt in Christo Ihesu.” 

Group of Toletanus, vill. (Madrid B.N.). Cauensis viil.—ix. 
(Rom. formerly Cloister of La Cana, Salerno). Leg.2**. 
Gothicus Legionensis, a.D. 960 (S. Isidio. Leon). Osc. Bible 
of Huesca xii. (Madrid Archaeol. Mus. 485). Compl.?3 x.—xii. 
Codices 32-34, Madrid Univ. Libr. B.N. Paris, 321. xii, dem. 
Cod. Demidorianus xiii. 


1 The words and letters in italics are conjecturally supplied by the Editor, 
being illegible in the MS. 


NOTES ON I JOHN 157 


* Quia! tres sunt qui testimonium dant? in terra Spiritus et 3 
aqua et sanguis et hi+ tres unum sunt in Christo Ihesu. Et® 
tres sunt’ qui testimonium dicunt® in caelo Pater uerbum et? 
Spiritus 10 et hii tres unum sunt. 


1 quoniam, ΟΡ]. ? dicunt, tol. 30m. osc, cpl. 321 dem. 
4 om. dem. > om. dem. § om. tol. cpl.” quia, ΠΣ Ι 
7 om. et tres sunt, cpl.® 8 dant, cpl.? 321, dem. om. 321”. 


10 +sanctus, osc. cpl.” 8.321. 


Berne University Lib. A. 9, Saec. xi. (Vienne au Dauphiné): 
“‘Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant! spiritus aqua et sanguis 
et tres unum sunt.” 2 


14in terra sec. man. 2+et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in 
caelo Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus et hii tres unum sunt sec. maz. 


Paris B.N. 4 and 43. ix. and x. (given by Chapter of Puy to 
Colbert in 1681) addition in nearly contemporary hand to 1 Jn. 
v. 7: “Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo Pater 
Verbum et Spiritus et tres unum sunt: et tres sunt qui testi- 
monium dant in terra sanguis aqua et caro. Si testimonium,” etc. 

Paris B.N. 2328, viil. ix. Codex Lemouicensis: ‘‘Quia tres 
sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et hi 
tres unum sunt: et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent Verbum 
et spiritus et tres unum sunt in Christo Ihesu.” 

B.N. 315, xli.—xiil.: “Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium 
dant in terra caro aqua et sanguis: et tres sunt qui testimonium 
dant in terra Pater Verbum et S.S. et hi tres unum sunt.” 

B.N. 13174, ix. (fin.): “‘Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium 
dant spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt.” 

A second hand, almost contemporary, adds: “ Quoniam tres 
sunt qui testimonium dant in terra Spiritus aqua et sanguis et 
tres unum sunt et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo 
Pater Verbum et Spiritus sanctum et hi tres unum [sunt].” 

This (M. Berger adds) is substantially the text of the first 
hand of Bible of Theodulf. 

B.N. 11532 (Lothaire 11. aD. 855-869), from Corbie: 
“Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant! spiritus aqua et 
sanguis et tres unum sunt et tres sunt qui. . .? testificantur? 
Pater verbum et spiritus et tres unum sunt.” 

1+4in terra sec. maz. 3 de caelo p. m, sup. ras. 8 testimonium 
dicunt in caelo sec. man. 

Vienna Bibl. Imp. 1190, ix. (inc.). First hand gives ver. 8 
without interpolation. In a second nearly contemporary hand 
is added, “Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in 
terra aqua sanguis et caro et tres in nobis sunt et tres sunt qui 
testimonium perhibent in caelo Pater Verbum et spiritus et hi 
tres unum sunt.” 


158 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


With this may be compared the reading found in Bibl. 
Mazarine 7: ‘Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo 
Pater Verbum et Spiritus et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in 
terra caro sanguis et aqua et hi tres in nobis unum sunt.” 

With these must be compared the quotation in the treatise 
“Contra Varimadum” attributed by Chifflet in his edition of 
1664 to Vigilius of Thapsus, and claimed by Kiinstle for the 
Spaniard Idacius Clarus (cf. Kiinstle, p. τό ; Herzog-Hauck, 20. 
642, s.v. Vigilius von Thapsus), which is almost identical with 
the reading of the second hand of the Vienna MS. 

S. Gall. 907. In the hand of ‘‘Winitharius.”  viii.: “ Quia 
tres sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et 
tres unum sunt: sicut in celo tres sunt Pater Verbum et 
Spiritus et tres unum sunt.” 

S. Gall. 83. Part of the MSS of Hartmut (841-872): 
“Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis 
et tres unum sunt: sicut in caelo tres sunt Pater Verbum et 
Spiritus et tres unum sunt.” 

Geneve 1. (x.-xi.), given to the Chapter of S. Peter by the 
Bishop Frederic (1031-1073). Representing an Italian text 
(Berger, 140 ff.): ‘‘Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus 
et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt: et tres testimonium 
perhibent in caelo Pater Verbum et Spiritus et tres unum 
sunt.” 

Theodulfian recension (B.N. 9380) ix.: “‘Quia tres sunt 
qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum 
sunt et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo Pater et Filius 
et Spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.” 

The earliest certain instance of the gloss being quoted as 
part of the actual text of the Epistle is in the Zzber Apologeticus 
(Ὁ A.D. 380) of Priscillian (ed. Schepps. Vienna Corpus xviii. 
1889) : “Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in 
terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt. et tria 
sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus ; 
et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.” With this must be 
compared the readings of the Leon Palimpsest, Compl.}, Leg.1, 
all of which agree, if Berger has rightly restored the text of the 
Palimpsest, in connecting the words ix Christo Zesu with the 
heavenly witnesses, placed, of course, afer the earthly witnesses. 
The two latter MSS give some support to the peculiarities of 
Priscillian’s text, the use of the neuter (2714) and the substitution 
of caro for spiritus. 

The evidence of the Exposttio Fidet, published by Caspari from 
the Ambrosian MS (i. tor sup.) which contained the Muratorian 
fragment, is also important: ‘‘Sicut euangelista testatur quia 
scriptum est, ‘Tres sunt qui dicunt testimonium in caelo pater 


NOTES ON I JOHN 159 


uerbum et spiritus’: et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu. 
Non tamen dixit ‘ Unus est in Christo Iesu.’” 

The close agreement of this with Priscillian’s quotation is 
evident. Unfortunately, the value of its evidence is difficult to 
determine. Caspari, its editor, regards the creed as African, of 
the fifth or sixth century. Dom Morin would attribute it to 
Isaac the Jew and the times of Damasus (372). Kiinstle regards 
it as clearly anti-Priscillianist and Spanish. If Dom Morin is 
right, its early date gives it a special importance. But the view 
that Priscillian is attacked in it is a satisfactory explanation of that 
part of it which is concerned with the Comma Joanneum. 

It may, however, be doubted whether later authorities do not 
preserve an earlier form of the interpolation. The date of the so- 
called Speculum is uncertain. Probably it is not later than the 
first half of the fifth century. Kunstle brings forward some 
indications of its connection with Spain and the orthodox 
opponents of Priscillian. The form in which it quotes our 
passage is of considerable interest. It occurs inc. ii., of which 
the heading is De distinctione personarum patris et filit et spiritus 
sancti, and runs as follows:! ‘‘ Quoniam (quia C) tres sunt qui 
testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus aqua et sanguis: et hii tres 
unum sunt in Christo Iesu, et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt 
in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus: et hii tres unum sunt.” 

The agreement of this with the group of MSS quoted above 
from Berger is at once evident. Theircommon source cannot be 
of recent date. And intrinsically their reading has the appear- 
ance of being, if not original, at least earlier than the Priscillian 
form. The words zz Christo Jesu are far more natural in 
connection with the earthly witnesses than at the end of the 
second clause.2, The form of text found in the Leon palimpsest, 
where there is no clause ‘‘et hii tres unum sunt” after the earthly 
witnesses, suggests how the connection of the phrases “hi tres 
unum sunt in Christo Iesu,” if originally referring to the earthly 
witnesses, might have become attached to the second verse 
(heavenly witnesses) by the mechanical process of the insertion 
of a marginal gloss, originally containing an interpretation, after 

1 De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum, ed. Weihrich, Vienna Corpus xii. 

2 There is possibly support for the addition ‘‘in Christo Iesu” to the 
clause about the unity of the earthly witnesses in the Latin translation of 
Clement of Alexandria’s Adumbrationes on the Epistle. ‘‘ Quia tres sunt qui 
testificantur Spiritus, quod est uita, et aqua, quod est regeneratio ac fides, et 
sanguis, quod est cognitio, ‘et his tres unum sunt.’ 772 Sa/uatore quippe istae 
sunt virtutes salutiferae, et uita ipsa in ipso filio eius exsistit.” Even if this is 
80, we are uncertain how much to refer to Clement and how much to his 
abbreviator. Cf. Cassiodorus, Complexzones in Ioannis Epist. ad Parthos: 
**Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria aqua sanguis et spiritus, quae in 


passione domini leguntur impleti ; in caelo autem pater et filius et Spiritus 
sanctus ; et hi tres unus est deus.” 


160 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


the word sazguis. The form in which Priscillian quotes the 
verses suited admirably his peculiar view as to the distinction of 
persons in the Trinity. If the Sfeculum is anti-Priscillianist, it 
is far more probable that the common use of the clause about 
the heavenly witnesses as part of the text of S. John’s Epistle is 
to be explained by the supposition that it had already found its 
way into some copies of the Epistles at an earlier date, than that 
Priscillian is first responsible for its insertion, while his opponents 
accepted his text and used it against him by means of a different 
interpretation, and, perhaps, a slight alteration. 

This point has been well discussed by M. Babut in his 
Priscillien et le Priscilliantsme (Bibliotheque de Ecole des hautes 
études, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 169, Paris, 1909), 
Appendix, iv. 3, p. 267 ff. He points out the great difficulties 
which met Kunstle’s suggestion that the insertion of the comma 
into the text of the Epistle is due to Priscillian himself: (1) His 
opponents never accuse him of having falsified the text of a 
Canonical Book. (2) To quote his own interpolation in his 
Apology would have been an inconceivable act of audacity. 
(3) Such a falsification could hardly have been accepted by all 
Catholic theologians, and, as Ktnstle has shown, the reading was 
universally accepted in the ninth century. (4) The verse is 
found in several orthodox works of the fifth century. Its accept- 
ance must therefore have been almost immediate by Priscillian’s 
enemies. It is far more probable that both Priscillian and his 
opponents found the gloss in the text of their Bibles. 

The confession of faith presented by the Catholic bishops of 
Africa to the vandal king Hunnerich in 484 (Victor Vitensis, 
Flistoria Persecutionis, ed. Petschenig, Vienna Corpus, vil. 46 ff.), 
is proof of the presence of the insertion in the Johannine text 
towards the end of the fifth century: ‘‘ Et ut adhuc luce clarius 
unius diuinitatis esse cum patre et filio spiritum sanctum doce- 
amus, Ioannis euangelistae testimonio comprobatur ; ait namque: 
Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent (dant cod) in caelo pater 
uerbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.” 

Unfortunately the whole passage is not quoted, and therefore 
the quotation throws litttle light on the history of the gloss. 
Kunstle, again, claims a Spanish source for the whole confession. 
Whether he is justified in doing so or not must be left to the 
specialist to determine. The quotation has of the variant 
dicunt, supposed by Berger to be Spanish (p. 163). 

It is certain that the gloss was accepted by Fulgentius of 


2M. Babut rejects Kiinstle’s statement that Priscillian dened the distinc- 
tion as too absolute. He adds, ‘‘ mais il est vrai qu’il les distingue mal et 
411] tend, en plusieurs textes, 4 les fondre en une seule. On a raison ce 
parler de panchristésme” (p. 273). 


NOTES ON I JOHN 161 


Ruspe (+533). Though the treatise De fide Catholica adv. 
Pintam is not recognized as his work, the quotations in his 
Responsio contra Arianos and De Trinitate determine the matter.! 
Here, also, it is only the gloss which is quoted. We do not 
know the relation in which it stood to the rest of the passage in 
his text of the Epistle. It may be worth while to add the exact 
text, which differs in the two quotations. The variants in 
brackets are from the De Z7rinitate. 

“Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent (dicunt) in caelo pater 
uerbum et spiritus: et (hi) tres unum sunt.” For ferhibent, cf. 
Cod. Lemonicensis, Vienna B.I. 1190, Geneva. 1. 

The evidence for the African use of the passage which has 
been supposed to be derived from Vigilius of Thapsus (490) is 
too uncertain to afford much help. 

The quotation in the First Book de Trinitate (Migne, P. Z. 
Ixii. 243), which is not by Vigilius, has an interesting text. 

“Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo pater uerbum et 
Spiritus et in Christo Iesu unum sunt.” 

The form of text contains Spanish affinities even if Kiinstle 
is not right in claiming a Spanish origin for the twelve books 
de Trinttate. 

The quotation in the treatise ας Varimadum (c. 5, Migne, 
P. L. \xii. 359) is still more interesting : 

‘*T'res sunt qui testimonium perhibent in terra aqua sanguis et 
caro et tres in nobis sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium 
perhibent in caelo pater verbum et Spiritus et ii tres unum sunt.” 
Cf. Vienna B.I. 1190, Bibl. Mazarine. Here, again, the con- 
nection with Spanish types of text is far more certain than any 
possible connection with Africa or Vigilius. 

The pseudo-Hieronymian prologue to the Catholic Epistles, 
which is found in the Codex Fuldensis (546), though that MS 
does not contain ver. 7 in its text of the Epistle, affords additional 
evidence of the prevalence of the gloss in the sixth and probably 
in the fifth century. 

‘Non ita est ordo apud Graecos qui integre sapiunt . . . illo 
praecipue loco, ubi de unitate trinitatis in prima Iohannis epistula 
positum legimus, in qua ab infidelibus translatoribus multum 
erratum esse fidei ueritate comperimus, trium tantummodo 
uocabula, hoc est aquae sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione 
ponentes, et patris uerbique ac spiritus testimonium omittentes, 
in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur et patris et filii et 
spiritus sancti una diuinitatis substantia comprobatur.” 

Kunstle would again find a Spanish origin for this prologue, 
attributing it to Peregrinus, the orthodox sponsor of Priscillianist 
writings ; but on what grounds he does not say. 

} See, however, Westcott, p. 194, who refers to C, Fabzan. fragm, 

II 


162 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


The evidence of Ziegler’s Freisingen fragment, now in the 
Staatsbibliothek at Munich, must be considered next. The 
passage runs as follows: 

QM TR es sunt qui testificantur 


IN TERRA : SPs ET AQUA ET SAnguis et tres sunt 

qui tes 

TIFICANTUR IN CAELO PaTER Et uerbum et sps 

scs et hi 

TRES UNUM SUNT Sr Testo: 

(The legible letters are given in capitals.) 

If Ziegler is right in his identification of the text of this 
fragment with that of Fulgentius of Ruspe, we have again im- 
portant evidence of the existence of the gloss in Africa at an early 
date. This is, however, already attested for the sixth century, 
and the fragment cannot be earlier than that. If the text 
of the quotation which has been given above for Fulgentius 
is correct, there are differences between his text and that of this 
fragment, at any rate in this passage. And M. Berger has pointed 
out the similarity between the text of the Leon Palimpsest and 
the Freisingen fragment in these verses (Histoire, p. 9). The 
closeness of similarity between the two texts is seen in the note 
which gives a comparison of their readings where the two can 
be tested. It will be seen that their agreement in readings 
certainly attested by both is very close indeed, and it is possible 
that a more accurate restoration of the illegible parts would re- 
veal even closer resemblance.! This agreement includes, in the 


1 LEON PALIMPSEST. ZIEGLER, 
1 JN. iv. 3-6. 
in carne uenisse om. (veading qui non confitetur 
i 
hic hoc 
quod quem 
4. eum 605 
is his 
saeculo +est 
audit nos nos audit 
ex hoc hinc. 
Vv. 3-II, 12-16. 
5. est +autem 
quoniam quia 
6. aguam et spm om. δέ sfm (no room) 
8. testémonium dant testificantur (suits better) 
7. testzmonzum dicunt ¢estificantur 


sunt 27 xpo thu 
9. guoniam 
0. filio 2° 


om. in x. i. (certain) 
quia 
in do 


NOTES ON I JOHN 163 
small space under consideration, the readings hoc (zc) est illius 
Antichristi (iv. 3), the priority of the earthly witnesses, as we 
should naturally expect in such early texts, the absence of the 
clause affirming the unity of the earthly witnesses. They differ in 
their translations of μαρτυρεῖν (unless, indeed, testificari should be 
supplied in the doubtful places of the Leon Palimpsest), and 
probably, with regard to the addition in Christo Iesu after unum 
sunt in ver. 8, which cannot be certainly claimed for the 
African text, unless the Sfecu/wm can be definitely connected 
with Africa. It would certainly be rash to assume an early 
African form of the text from which these words were absent as 
opposed to the early Spanish form which undoubtedly had 
them, and probably in this place. It is always possible that 
their absence from later texts may have affected the manuscript 
transmission of the text of early quotations. We are again 
brought to the conclusion that the relation between early African 
and Spanish texts needs further investigation. 

The gloss was certainly known as part of the text of the 
Epistle in Africa in the fifth century. Its acceptance as part 
of the text cannot be proved in any country except Spain in 
the fourth century. There it was undoubtedly used by Priscillian 
(? 380). The influence of his work and writings on the Latin 
text of the Bible, which passed over into orthodox circles through 
Peregrinus and others, is an undoubted fact. It is through the 
Theodulfian Recension of the Vulgate that the gloss first gained 
anything like wide acceptance. A large proportion of the 
earlier evidence for the gloss can be very plausibly traced to 
Spanish influences. Thus the importance of the name of 
Priscillian in the history of the insertion is fully established. But 
Kiinstle has not proved his point that Priscillian was the first 
who introduced the words into the text of S. John’s Epistle, or 
even that this first took place in Spain. At least it may be said 
that the evidence of Spanish manuscripts, of the form in which 
the gloss is found in Priscillian, and of its use by his opponents, 
suggest the probability that Priscillian was not responsible for its 
first introduction. But these reasons are not conclusive. Inone 
point Priscillian has preserved the true reading against (?) all 
Latin authorities, reading, with regard to the earthly witnesses, 
im unum sunt. It isa possible explanation of the textual facts 
that the words zz Christo Jesu were first connected with the 
passage by Priscillian, either as part of the text or as an ex- 
planation. In the place which he assigns to them they support 
his “ Panchristismus” admirably. Their first connection with 

13. aeternam habetis habetis aeternam 


14. guodcungue quidquid 
15. scenes siscim's, 


164 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


the earthly witnesses may be due to their removal by Peregrinus 
or some orthodox opponent of Priscillian to a place where they 
did not give such clear support to Priscillian’s views. 

At present we cannot say more than that the insertion was 
certainly known in Africa in the fifth century. The connection 
between the Spanish and African texts still requires investigation. 
Though its acceptance as part of the text of the Epistle cannot 
be proved for any locality except Spain in the fourth century, it 
does not necessarily follow that it is of Spanish origin. 

In view of the clear evidence that Priscillian in 380 knew, 
or made the words part of his text, it is difficult to maintain an 
African origin for the gloss, which did zof form part of the text 
of Augustine, who died a.D. 430. On this point Jilicher’s 
interesting review of Kinstle’s work (Gottingen: Anzeigen, 1905, 
ΡΡ. 939-935) perhaps hardly does justice to the strength of 
Kinstle’s position, though it rightly calls attention to some 
inaccuracies in his quotations and defects in his methods of 
presenting the evidence. Ziegler’s theory of the African origin 
of the gloss is now faced by great, if not insuperable, difficulties. 
But the subject needs further investigation by competent Latin 
scholars. 

There is no trace of the presence of the gloss in any Oriental 
version or in Greek writers, except under the influence of the 
Vulgate. 

The following note in Zohrab’s edition of the Armenian 
Bible is of sufficient interest to deserve quotation in full. I am 
indebted for the translation to my friend and colleague Mr. N. 
McLean, Tutor and Lecturer of Christ’s College, Cambridge. 
The note has been somewhat curtailed by paraphrase. 

“‘Qscan here as in many other places altered the Armenian 
text from the Latin, adding, ‘Who witnesses that Christ is the 
Truth. For there are three who witness in heaven, the Father, 
the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one: and there 
are three who witness on earth, Spirit, Water, and Blood, and 
the three areone. If of men,’etc. But of eighteen of our MSS, 
old and new, and two Catholic interpreters in addition, one only 
from the new, written in A.D. 1656, ten years before the edition 
of Oscan, thus puts the text ‘That the Spirit is truth. There 
are the three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and 
the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three 
who testify on earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. If 
of men,’ etc. And although there was also another more ancient 
copy which contained a similar text, nevertheless it plainly 
appeared that the first writing had been erased, and the longer 
text adjusted to its space by another writer. All our MSS, 
whether of the whole Scriptures or of missals, as well as 


NOTES ON I JOHN 165 


numerous Greek older copies, have only the text which we have 
been compelled to edit (1.6. the true text without the gloss).” 

The close parallel to the history of the insertion of the gloss 
in the Greek text is of some interest. 

According to Westcott, it first appears in Greek in a Greek 
version of the Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. Its first 
appearance in a Greek MS of the N.T., the Graeco-Latin 
Vatican MS Oftobon. 162 (xv.), betrays the use of the Vul- 
gate, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν of μαρτυροῦντες ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πατὴρ λόγος 
καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν ol μαρτυρ- 
οὔντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμας The Codex 
Britannicus (Dublin, Montfort 34, saec. xvi.) is even more slavish 
(ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς, πνεῦμα ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα). Erasmus 
fulfilled his promise to the letter in his third edition. He 
follows the MS that had been “provided” exactly, except that 
he inserts καί before ὕδωρ, and does not remove the clause καὶ 
οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, which rightly had a place in his earlier 
editions. 

The history of the Montfort Codex, which Dr. Dobbin pro- 
nounced to be “a transcript with arbitrary and fanciful 
variations” of the Oxford MS Zzxcoln 39, has been further in- 
vestigated by Dr. Rendel Harris in his ‘‘ Leicester Codex,” 1880. 
Both MSS were at one time in the possession of the same 
owner, Chark. His reasons for suggesting that the MS was 
actually forged by a Franciscan of the name of Roy (or Froy), 
perhaps at the instignation of Henry Standish, provincial master 
of the order in England, will be found on pp. 46-53 of the 
‘Leicester Codex.” They are plausible, even if they do not 
compel assent. He has at least proved that the MS was in the 
hands of Franciscans at a date very near to that of its actual 
production. 

Before the appearance of Erasmus’s third edition in 1522 
the gloss had already been printed in Greek in the Complutensian 
Polyglott in 1514. The text is obviously derived, if not taken 
immediately from the Vulgate, though the supply of the necessary 
articles and copulas to make the sentences Greek has partially 
concealed its close dependence upon the Latin. 


NOTES ON 2 JOHN. 


1-3. Introduction and salutation. 

1. ὃ πρεσβύτερος] The use of πρεσβύτερος as a more or less 
official title in Asia Minor, the Islands, and Egypt has been 
discussed by Deissmann, Bibel Studien, 153 ff., WBS 60 ff. Cf. 
also H. Hauschildt, in Preuschen’s ZVTVW, 1903, p. 235 ff., and 
Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 25. Its use in Egypt as a title, 
and in connection with the Temples, as well as in other connec- 
tions, is well established at an early date. The evidence of 
Papias and Irenaeus points to a prevalent Christian usage of 
the word, especially in Asia, to denote those who had companied 
with Apostles, and had perhaps been placed in office by them ; 
who could, at any rate, bear trustworthy witness as to what 
Apostles taught. It is natural to suppose that throughout the 
fragment of his Introduction, which Eusebius quotes, Papias 
uses the expression πρεσβύτερος in the same sense. ‘The elders 
are the men from whom he has himself well learnt and well 
remembered the illustrative matter for which he finds a place 
in his book beside his interpretations of the Lord’s words, or 
whose statements as to what the Apostles said he had learnt by 
inquiry whenever he met those who had companied with them. 
This interpretation is supported by the comments of Eusebius on 
the passage (27. £. ili. 39. 7), τοὺς τῶν ἀποστόλων λόγους παρὰ τῶν 
αὐτοῖς παρηκολουθηκότων ὁμολογεῖ παρειληφέναι, z.e. he learnt from 
elders who had companied with Apostles the words of the 
Apostles, obtaining his information either directly from the 
elders themselves, or indirectly from those who had companied 
with the elders. Irenaeus uses similar language, adv. Haer. v. 
XXxili. 3, “Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt qui Iohannem 
discipulum Domini uiderunt audisse se ab eo quemadmodum de 
temporibus illis docebat Dominus et dicebat”: II. xxxvi. 1, ὧς of 
πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσιν Τότε καὶ of μὲν καταξιωθέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ 
διατριβῆς ἐκεῖσε χωρήσουσιν. Any individual member of such a 
class might naturally be styled 6 πρεσβύτερος, as Papias speaks 

166 


1.] NOTES ON 2 JOHN 167 


of 6 πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, or ὁ πρεσβύτερος, and Eusebius (Z#. £. 
lil. 39. 14) of rod πρεσβυτέρου Iwavvov παραδόσεις. The absolute 
use of the phrase in Papias (καὶ τοῦθ᾽ ὃ πρεσβύτερος ἕλεγε) and 
in 2 and 3 John makes it the distinctive title of some member 
of the circle to whom the words are addressed, or at least of one 
who is well known to them. The circle is in all three cases 
Asiatic. It is natural to suppose that Papias is referring to the 
John whom he elsewhere describes as John the Elder. And it 
is equally natural to see in the author of these two Epistles, who 
so describes himself, the Elder John whom Papias so carefully 
distinguishes from the Apostle. The usage of the word is most 
naturally explained if he is the last survivor of the group, though 
the possibility of other solutions is by no means excluded. 
ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ] The interpretation of these words has been 
discussed generally in the Introduction. Those who have seen 
in this designation the name of an individual have explained it 
differently according as the first, or the second, or both words 
are regarded as proper names, or both are treated as descriptive 
adjectives, the actual name not being given. (i.) The view that 
Electa is a proper name is first found in Clement of Alexandria, ἡ 
‘Scripta est ad Babyloniam quandam Electam nomine.” It is 
uncertain whether “‘ Babyloniam ” is due to some confusion with 
the First Epistle of S. Peter on the part of either Clement or his 
excerptor and translator, or whether it is a conclusion drawn 
from the title Πρὸς Πάρθους by which the First Epistle was known 
(cf. the title of Augustine’s Tractates). This view has been 
supported in recent years by Dr. J. Rendel Harris, who in an 
article in the Lxfositor (1901) to which reference has been 
made in the Introduction, collected several instances of the use 
of κύριος and κυρία by near relatives in letters contained in the 
Oxyrhynchus, and Fayum Papyri. Cf. Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 300 
(p. 301), Ἰνδικὴ Θαεισοῦτι τῇ κυρίᾳ χαίρειν. He might have 
noticed a similar use of δέσποινα in one of the letters which he 
quotes (ἀσπάζομαι τὴν γλυκυτάτην μου θυγατέρα Μακκαρίαν καὶ τὴν 
δεσποίνην μου μητέραν ὑμῶν καὶ ὅλους τοὺς ἡμῶν κατ᾽ ὄνομα : cf. in 
the same letter, written by a father to his son, κἂν ὥς, δεσποτά 
μοι, ἀντίγραψον μοι ἐν τάχει). His view that κύριος, κυρία are 
thus proved to have been used as titles of affection, has been 
justly criticized by Professor Ramsay in a subsequent article in 
the same periodical, who sees in it more naturally a title of 
courtesy. Perhaps it would be better to regard its use as rather 
playful, or not to be taken too seriously. But the evidence 
adduced in any case does not go far towards proving that 2 John 
is addressed to an individual. The usage of individual address 
would necessarily be followed by a writer who wishes to personify 
a community to whom he writes. And the language of ver. 15 


168 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [1. 


(τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς) is almost fatal to the supposition 
that Electa is here used as a proper name. 

(ii.) If the name is given at all it must be found in Kyria and 
not in Electa. Kyria as a proper name is found occasionally, 
and even in Asia Minor. Liicke quotes (Pp. 444) Corp. Inscr. 
Gruter. p. 1127, n. ΧΙ. Φένιππος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Kupia, and other 
instances. According to Holtzmann it is a common name for 
women, but he does not cite instances. Cf. Zahn, Jztrod. vol. 
ili, Eng. tr. p. 383, who refers to Sterrett, Zze Wolfe Expedition, 
pp: 138, 389. But on grammatical grounds this explanation is 
improbable. We should certainly expect the article with ἐκλεκτῇ. 
(ΘΙ Jn. 1, Ταίῳ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ: Ro. xvi. 13, Ῥοῦφον τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν 
ἐν κυρίῳ: Philem. Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ: Oxyrh. Pap. τι, Χαιρέας 
Διονυσίῳ τῷ κυρίῳ ἀδελφῷ: 119, Θέων Θέωνι τῷ πατρὶ χαίρειν. 
These passages illustrate the grammatical difficulty of assuming 
that Kvpia is a proper name. The anarthrous ἐκλεκτῇ makes it 
very improbable. 

(11.) The language of ver. 13, ἀσπάζεταί σε τὰ τέκνα τῆς 
ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς, Makes it very unlikely that ὀοέ words 
are to be regarded as proper names. 

(iv.) The view, however, that an individual is addressed, has 
often been held by those who think that her name has not been 
recorded. As stated in the Introduction, the name of Mary the 
Mother of the Lord, and of Martha, have been suggested. The 
former suggestion was natural, if not inevitable, at an earlier 
date, in view of Jn. xix. 27 and the supposed residence of the 
Blessed Virgin in Asia, when the general historical setting of the 
Epistle was less carefully considered or understood than in 
recent times. A supposed play on the meaning of Martha was 
equally attractive to an earlier generation. No serious arguments 
can be brought forward in favour of either conjecture. If the 
theory of individual address is maintained, it is certainly better 
to assume that the name is not given. The combination of 
terms is a natural expression of Christian courtesy. 

But the general character of the Epistle is almost decisive 
against the view that it is addressed to an individual. The 
subjects with which it deals are such as affect a community 
rather than an individual or a family, though much of its contents 
might be regarded as advice needed by the leading member of 
a Church on whom the duty mainly fell of entertaining the 
strangers who visited it. We must also notice (1) that the 
language of vv. 1-3, “Whom I and all who know the truth love 
because of the truth that abideth in us,” suits a community far 
better than an individual. This is also true of the language of 
the salutation in ver. 13 which has been already quoted. (2) 
The interchange of singular and plural points to the same con- 


17 NOTES ΟΝ 2 JOHN 169 


clusion, εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου (ver. 4). ἐρωτῶ oe (ver. 5), 
βλέπετε ἑαυτούς (ver. 8), εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς (ver. 10), ὑμῖν 
(ver. 12), ἀσπάζεταί σε (ver. 13). Mr. Gibbins in an interesting 
paper in the Lxfositor (series 6, 1902, p. 232) has drawn atten. 
tion to the similar changes between singular and plural which are 
found in Is. liv., lv. and Bar. iv., v., where the City and her 
inhabitants are addressed under the image of a woman and her 
children. These parallels show clearly how natural was the 
transference of the prophetic language with regard to Jerusalem 
and its inhabitants to a Christian Church and its members. 
(3) The language of ver. 5, ἐρωτῷ σε, κυρία, οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφων 
σοι καινήν, ἀλλὰ ἣν εἴχαμεν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, 
with its clear reference to the Lord’s “new commandment” 
given to His disciples, suggests a Church and not an individual. 
(4) The substance of what is said in wv. 6, 8, 10, 12 is clearly 
not addressed to children. The “children” of the “Elect 
Lady” must certainly have reached the age of manhood. (5) 
The nearest parallel in the N.T. is to be found in 1 P. v. 13, ἡ ἐν 
Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή, though we may hesitate to assume with 
Dom Chapman (/ZS, 1904, pp. 357 ff., 517 ff.) that the reference 
in both cases is the same, the Church of Rome being addressed. 
We may perhaps also compare the language in which the Seer 
addresses the same Churches in the Apocalypse (i.—iii.). 

The reference to the whole Church is already suggested by 
Clement, “‘significat autem electionem ecclesiae sanctae.” Cf. 
also Jerome, Ef. 123. 12, Ad Ageruchiam, “ Una ecclesia parens 
omnium Christianorum .. . praue haeretici in plures ecclesias 
lacerant... Ona est columba mea, perfecta mea, una est matris 
suae, electa genetrict suae (Cant. vi. 8). Ad quam scribit idem 
Iohannes epistolam, Senior Electae dominae et filiis eius,” where 
the reference to the Church is clear, though he apparently regards 
Electa as a proper name. 

The reference to a local Church is found in the Scholiast, 
ἐκλεκτὴν κυρίαν λέγει τὴν ἐν τινὶ τύπῳ ἐκκλησίαν. This explana- 
tion has been adopted by most modern commentators. 

καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς] Cf. Bar. iv. 30-325, θάρσει, Ἵερου- 
σαλήμ, παρακαλέσει σε ὃ ὀνομάσας σε. wen οἱ σε κακώσαντες 
καὶ ἐπιχαρέντες TH σῆ πτώσει: δείλαιαι ai πόλεις αἷς ἐδούλευσαν τὰ 
τέκνα σου, δειλαία ἡ δεξαμένη τοὺς υἱούς σου. ν΄. 5, ἴδε σου συνηγμένα 
τὰ τέκνα ἀπὸ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἘΠΕ - χαίροντας τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μνείᾳ. 
Gal. iv. 25, δουλεύει μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. The use of τέκνα, 
which emphasizes the idea of community of nature of those 
who have experienced the new spiritual birth, as contrasted with 
the Pauline υἱός, which often lays stress on the dignity of heir- 
ship, is characteristic of the author. But it is not always safe 
to press the distinction. The more general term, which includes 


170 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN (1, 2. 


the whole family, would in many cases naturally be preferred 
to vids, which, strictly speaking, applies only to sons. 

ods ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ] Cf. Gal. iv. 19, τέκνα (0.4. τεκνία) pov, ods 
πάλιν ὠδίνω. Arguments, in favour of the view that a Church 
is addressed, which are based on the use of the masculine rela- 
tive are very precarious. In any case it would be the natural 
construction κατὰ σύνεσιν. For the use of ἐγώ, cf. 3 Jn. 1. It 
may be characteristic of the writer’s style. But the emphatic 
language of the rest of the verse suggests that the author is 
thinking of those who do not love, and love “in truth.” 

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ] Cf. 3 Jn. 1, where the word is again anarthrous. 
The phrase is not ‘‘ merely adverbial,” a periphrasis for “ truly.” 
It suggests a love which is exercised in the highest sphere, which 
corresponds to the truest conception of love. Cf. περιπατεῖν 
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, conduct in which everything is regulated by “ truth.” 

καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ «.7.A.] The unsuitability of this language, if ad- 
dressed to the members of a single family, has already been 
pointed out. As addressed to members of a Church in which 
the Elder can confidently reckon on faithful support, while he 
is fully conscious of the existence of divisions and of strenuous 
opposition to himself and his teaching, they offer no difficulty 
and have their special significance. 

τὴν ἀλήθειαν] Cf. 1 Jn. i. 6 (note). The truth, as revealed 
by the Christ, and gradually unfolded by the Spirit, who is 
“Truth.” It covers all spheres of life, and is not confined to 
the sphere of the intellect alone. 


o πρεσβυτερος] ἡ συμπρεσβυτερος 93: Lohannes senzor tol. Cassiod. | 
exexTn] pr. τὴ 73 | Kupia] pr. τη 31 | avrys] avros 75 © (317) | ous] ovs 7? 8 
161 (498) fe αληθεια ἀγαπω 75 158 (395) | καὶ οὐκ eyo S Β K P al. pler. vg. 
sah. cop. syr? arm. aeth.] οὐκ eyw de A 73 syrdl Thphyl. : - δὲ L | καὶ 3°] 
om. Z*179 (303) | eyvwxores] ἀγαπωντες 75 5197 (547), 


2. διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν] The possession of the “truth” as an 
abiding force which dominates the whole life calls out the love 
of all who share the possession. 

ἐν ἡμῖν] The author includes the Church to whom he is 
writing, or at least its faithful members, in the numbers of those 
who “know the truth.” 

καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔσται] An expression of sure confidence rather 
than of a wish. The truth must always “abide” in the Society, 
though individual members may fall away. For the parenthetical 
construction, cf. 1 Jn. 111. 1, ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, καὶ ἐσμέν. 


δια την αληθειανἾ om. 27. 29. 66**. 106* fu. syrP t | μενουσαν BK 

9 LP etc.] ενοικούσαν A: οὐσαν 13. 65 d°*: om. 66** | qu] υμιν 22. 68. 

100. 104 cS js | kat. . . αἰωνα] gua et uobiscum erit et nos in aelernum 

uobescum erttts arma. | nuwy] vuwn 22. 68. 100. 104 as cst js al. | eorae 
ΕΟΤΙΡ 31 syrbodletp; egry J 200f (83), 


8, 4. NOTES ON 2 JOHN 171 


8. ἔσται μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] The taking up of the language of the pre- 
ceding verse is thoroughly in accord with the writer’s habit. 
Compare the repetition of ἀλήθεια in the preceding verse. The 
wish expressed in ordinary salutations here “‘ passes into assur- 
ance.” Perhaps in view of their circumstances the need of 
assurance was specially felt by writer and recipients as well. 

χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη] This exact form of salutation is found 
elsewhere in the Epistles to Timothy. It is a natural expansion 
of the commoner χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη which in some sense com- 
bines the Greek and Hebrew forms of salutation; and it fits 
in well with the general tone of later Epistles. Neither ἔλεος 
nor the cognate verb occurs elsewhere in the Johannine writings. 
Cf. Jude 2, ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη : Polycarp, 
ad Phil. ἔλεος ὑ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, and the Letter of the Smyrnaeans, 
ἔλεος Kal εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη. .. πληθυνθείη. 

παρὰ Ἰησοῦ κ-τ.λ.] The whole phrase brings into prominence 
the views on which the author throughout lays most stress—the 
Fatherhood of God, as revealed by one who being His Son can 
reveal the Father, and who as man (Ἰησοῦ) can make Him 
known to men. Cf. Jn. xx. 31, Wa πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ 
Χριστὸς ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ. The words used contain implicitly the 
author’s creed. 

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ) The two vital elements of the Christian 
Faith, the possession of the highest knowledge and its expres- 
sion in action. ‘They are the keynotes of the Epistle. 


estat μεθ ἡμων] om. A | ecrar]+de 15. 36 nuwy 8 BL Pal. sat. mu. 

cat. am. sah. boh-ed. syrbl aeth. Thphyloo™ Oecco™] ὑμων K al. plu. 

vg. (et. fu. demid. harl. tol.) arm. boh-codd. (er. μεθ vu.!post ayarn 
arm. boh.) syr?. An obvious correction to the more usual 2nd pers. of 
salutations | xapis] χαρὰ 70 76 (440): + upwr Kar 7) 116. 486. 356 ( _ ) | εἰρηνὴ] 
pr. καὶ £2 ($3) | rapa N° A BL Pal. pler.] avo N* 11. 18. 19. 32. 70: 
57. 68. 98. 105. 126 cst, A natural correction to the more common 
usage of salutations; cf. Ro., 1, 2 Co. Gal. Eph. Ph. Col., 2 Th., 1, 2, 
Ti. Philem. Apoc. Clement. Polycarp has παρά | (θεου. . . και 1°)om. sah, 
| θεον (? ver. 3)] om. £7 874 (7) 7° 486 (—) | marpos (ὃ 19)] pr. καὶ 75.258 (24) | 

παρα 2°] om. N* 99 fF am. | τησου χριστου] pr. κῦ & KL P al. pler. cat. 
tol. cop. syr. arm. Thphyl. Oec. : xu ww A" (33) 7% 6703ff. 192 (808) | τοῦ 1°] 
om. H 65 (W) 7°44 (335) τοῦ 2°] pr. αὐτου N* | ayamn καὶ αληθεια 7" δ06 (60) 
| kae αγαπὴ] ayarnrn H δὲ (Ψ) | ayarn] pr. ev £* 53 (808): epayn .10 86 
(214). 

4-11. ‘Counsel and warning.” 

4. ἐχάρην λίαν] Cf. 3 Jn. 3; Lk. xxiii. 8. We may compare 
also St. Paul’s use of εὐχαριστεῖν in the opening verses of eight 
of his Epistles. It is part of the usual order of epistolary 
composition to strike first the note of praise or thankfulness. 
The aorist is probably not epistolary, the contrast of νῦν in 
ver. 5 makes it almost certain that it refers to past time. 

εὕρηκα! The connection of this word with ἐχάρην shows that 


172 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [4. 


we have here one of the instances, of which there are several in 
the N.T., which prove that in certain words the perfect is in this 
period beginning to lose its special force, though the process 
has not yet gone so far as is often maintained. Cf. Burton, 
NV.T. Moods and Tenses, p. 44, who regards the usage as confined 
in the N.T. to a few forms, ἔσχηκα, εἴληφα, ἑώρακα, εἴρηκα, 
γέγονα. To distinguish in this verse between the initial moment 
(ἐχάρην) and the ground of it which still continues is precarious. 
A comparison of 3 Jn. 3 suggests that the information 
which caused his joy came to the Elder through travelling 
brethren who, perhaps from time to time (cf. περιπατοῦντας), 
brought him news of the sister Church. There is no suggestion 
of an earlier visit of his own to the Church to which he is now 
writing. In that case he would probably have used the aorist. 
ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου] He cannot praise the whole Church 
without distinction. All the members of the community had 
not remained faithful to the “truth.” If “many” had not 
themselves gone out into the world as deceivers (ver. 7), many 
had listened to the seductive teaching of such deceivers. It 
seems probable that even the majority had been led astray. 
περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ] Cf. ver. 1, and 3 Jn. 4. The 
“truth” corresponds to perfection in every sphere of being. 
καθὼς ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός] Ch Jn. x τὴ ἡ δὰ 
τοῦτό με ὃ “πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα πάλιν 
λάβω αὐτήν. οὐδεὶς ἦρεν αὐτὴν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ᾽ 
ἐμαυτοῦ. ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν 
αὐτήν. ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός pov. Cf. Jn. ΧΙ]. 
49; 1 Jn. ill. 22. The phrase ἐντολὴν λαβεῖν is used elsewhere 
in the ΝΕ. cf, Ac xvit. 15;Col. iv. τὸ Dom) ‘Chapmanis 
ingenious suggestion, that the meaning of this verse should be 
determined by the passage quoted from Jn. x., breaks down, as 
Prof. Bartlet has shown, on a point of grammar. ‘The present 
participle (περιπατοῦντας) could not be used in such a sense. 
Men could hardly be said to continue in the exercise of the 
“remarkable virtue” of martyrdom. The command referred 
to here must be either the ‘“‘new commandment” to love as 
Christ loved (cf. 1 Jn. iv. 21), which perhaps suits ver. cy best, 
or the commandment to faith and love; cf. 1 Jn. iil. 23; καὶ αὕτη 
ἐστὶν n ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν. 
On the whole the latter suits the whole context better. 


Aiav] om. 78769 (440):+meyadrws 75 66 (317) ευρηκα] evpov 7% 8°4* 
(?) K°S (119) | cov] μου 75 Τὸ (505) | περιπατουντας] post. αληθεια Ο (154): 
περιπατουντα 40. 67. 69. 101. 180 S* | καθως ἐντολὴν] secundum mandatum 
guod arm. | καθως7- καὶ 75 10 (505) | ελαβομεν] ελαβον N 13. 28. An 
accidental error (? from Jn. x. 18) | παρα] απο A 73 | Tov] om. Β, 


5, 6.] NOTES ON 2 JOHN 173 


5. viv] The adverb is temporal. Cf. ver. 4, ἐχάρην. 

ἐρωτῶ σε Kupia] If ἐρωτᾶν has the special force of suggesting 
some sort of equality of position between the two parties 
concerned (‘‘in the exercise of the full privilege of Christian 
fellowship,” Wsct.), the emphasis is laid on the words οὐχ ὡς 
ἐντολήν. The Elder who has the right to command merely 
grounds a personal request, as between equals, on the old 
command laid on both alike by the Master. If, however, the 
special meaning of ἐρωτᾶν is to be found in the emphasis which 
it lays on the person addressed, as opposed to the thing asked 
(αἰτεῖν), then Kvpia is the emphatic word. He can ask in full 
confidence of the ‘‘ Elect Lady” that which is no new command, 
pleading for the fulfilment of the old commandment laid on 
her and on all by the Lord. But ἐρωτᾶν was the zatural word 
to use. Cf. Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 292, ἠρώτησα δὲ καὶ Ἑρμίαν τὸν 
ἀδελφὸν διὰ γραπτοῦ ἀνηγεῖσθαί σοι περὶ τούτου. 

εἴχαμεν!] The writer includes himself and all Christians 
among the recipients of the command. There is no need to 
limit his application of the first person plural to those who 
originally heard the command given. 

ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλληλούς] These words should probably be 
taken, not as dependent on ἐρωτῶ, but as defining the ἐντολή. 
The instances of the purely definitive ἵνα have been collected 
before. 


epwrw] ερωτωμεν 75.101. 7 6 (40) boh-cod. | Ὑραῴφων σοι καινην BK LP 
al. pler. cat. sah. Thphyl. Oec.] καινην γραῴων σοι & A 5. 13. 31. 68 dsr 
vg. cop. Leif. | γραφων] ypadw 64. 65. 66. 106 dscr* al. uix. mu. arm. 
aeth. | καινην] inc. Sah? | ἀλλα] ἐντολὴν δὲ : +evTo\ny παλαιὰν syr? | 
εἰχαμεν NS ΑἹ εἰχομεν BK L Ρ ἃ]. pler. : εχομὲν 31. 38. 68 aS al, fere, Ὁ 
| eva] pr. add J 64 (?), 


6. αὕτη ἐστίν... ἵνα] Cf. 1 Jn. v. 3, iii. 23. In the first 
Epistle the love which is said to consist in the “keeping” of 
His commandments is more clearly defined as the love of God. 
Here it is left undefined. The immediate context (iva ἀγαπῶμεν 
ἀλλήλους) suggests that the writer is thinking especially of 
Christian brotherly love. The highest expression of this love is 
found in obedience to all the commands (however variously 
expressed) which God has enjoined in regulation of the relations 
between brethren. The clearest expression of love is obedience 
to the will of God, so far as He has revealed His will in definite 
precepts. It is quite in the writer’s style to make the more 
absolute statement, even if he is thinking particularly of a special 
application. 

αὕτη ἣ ἐντολή ἐστιν] The order of the words, if this is the 
true text, lays stress on ἢ ἐντολή. This is the one command in 
which all precepts are summed up. 


174 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [6.7 


καθὼς ἠκούσατε] If the reading ἵνα καθώς is correct, the ἵνα 
which precedes ἐν αὐτῇ must be resumptive. Cf. 1 Jn. iii. 20, 
according to a possible interpretation of that verse. The 
omission of ἵνα certainly appears to be an attempt at simplifica- 
tion. In either case the clause must be taken with what follows, 
and regarded as thrown forward for the sake of emphasis. 

ἵνα. . . περιπατῆτε] In order to avoid the appearance of tauto- 
logy most commentators interpret ἐν αὐτῇ as referring to ἀγάπη, the 
main subject of the verse. It would be tempting to refer it to 
the subject of the sentence ἀληθεία (ver. 4). The oxe command 
is that we should walk in truth as we have heard it from the 
beginning. This would suit the following verse. But the more 
natural reference is to the command. Cf. the Vulgate rendering 
in eo (sc. mandato). If this is possible, the emphasis must be on 
περιπατεῖν and καθὼς ἠκούσατε. The command which sums up all 
the precepts, which men show their love in obeying, is the 
command to active obedience to God’s will as it has been 
revealed from the beginning of the Christian life, to “abide” in 
what they have always known, and to let it regulate their 
whole conduct and life. 


kat... ayamrnjom. aeth. | αὐτου] του θῦ 7570 (505) | avrn 2°] pr. δέ arm. 
boh-ed. | η ἐντολὴ] post εστιν N(+avrov) LP al. pler. ug“ et. demid. 
harl. tol. sah. cop. arm. Leif. Thphyl. Oec. | caOws.. . περιπατητε] utznceda- 
mus in hoc quod audiutstis antiquitus aeth. | καθὼς B L Ρ al. pler. syrbodiet p 
Leif. Thphyl. Oec ] pr. wa 8 AK 13. 31. 73. al. mu. cat. vg. sah. cop. 
arm. | wa 2°] om. Καὶ 13 al. mu. cat. vg. sah. boh. (uid.) arm. | ev αὐτὴ] 
om. 75 11 (319) | περιπατΊΤεΕ] περιπατειτε L 13 al. 4114. Thphyl. : περιπα- 
TnonTe δ : tncedamus arm-codd. boh-ed. 


7. ὅτι] gives the reason for the preceding ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ περι- 
πατῆτε. If this refers to love, the reason given must be either 
(1) that the presence of such false teachers as are here described 
is likely to prove destructive to the exercise of mutual love 
among Christians, or (2) that their zeaching, in denying the 
reality of the Incarnation, cuts away the whole foundation of 
Christian love as called out by the great act of love in which 
God expressed His love for the world. But both these 
interpretations are forced, and the contents of this verse point to 
a different interpretation of ver. 6, that, namely, which throws the 
emphasis on the word περιπατῶμεν. The command to mutual 
love grounded on true faith must be obeyed so as to find 
expression in action and conduct (περιπατεῖν). Otherwise the 
forces which make against obedience will be too strong. Many 
have joined the world, and their power to lead astray is great. 

πλάνοι] Cf. τ Jn. 11. 26, τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς, and the accusa- 
tion brought against the Lord by some of the crowd in Jn. vii. 12, 
πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον: cf. also Justin Martyr’s λαοπλάνον. The 


7. NOTES ON 2 JOHN 175 


substantive does not occur in the Johannine writings except in 
this verse. The verb is fairly common in the Apocalypse. 

ἐξῆλθαν] Cf. τ Jn. iv. 1, πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλυθασιν εἰς 
τὸν κόσμον. The verb probably does not refer to the excom- 
munication or withdrawal of the false teachers (contrast 1 Jn. 
ii. 19, ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν). It suggests the idea that these deceivers 
have received their mission from the Evil One, in whose power 
“the whole world lieth.” 

οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες] The subjective negative is naturally used 
when a class is described and characterized. They are dis- 
tinguished by their refusal to confess the truth of the Incarnation. 

ἸΙησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί] Cf. 1 Jn. iv. 2ff., esp. ὃ 
ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, of which the present 
passage is almost certainly a reminiscence; cf. the notes on the 
earlier passage. The chief difference is in the tense of the 
participle. By the use of ἐρχόμενον instead of ἐληλυθότα the 
confession is taken out of all connection with time and made 
timeless. In the First Epistle stress was laid on the historical 
fact and its permanent consequences. Here the writer regards 
it as a continuous fact. The Incarnation is not only an event in 
history. It is an abiding truth. It is the writer's view that 
humanity has been taken up into the Deity. The union is 
permanent and abiding. His view as to the exact difference in 
the relation of the Logos to the world and to mankind, which was 
brought about by the Incarnation, is not so clear. All creation 
was “life in Him.” Before the Incarnation ‘‘ He came to His 
own.” But it is clear that he regarded it as a completely new 
revelation of what human nature was capable of becoming, and 
as establishing the possibility for all future time of a more real 
union between Godand man. The Incarnation was more than a 
mere incident, and more than a temporary and partial connection 
between the Logos and human nature. It was the permanent 
guarantee of the possibility of fellowship, and the chief means by 
which it is brought about.? 

οὗτος κιτιλ.] Cf. τ Jn. 11. 22 and 18. The coming of Anti- 
christ is fulfilled in the sum-total of all the evil tendencies in the 
work and influence of those who refuse to confess “‘ Jesus Christ 
come in flesh.” 

ὁ πλάνος] The deceiver, par excellence, known as Antichrist in 
popular expectation. As in the First Epistle, the writer uses the 
term as the convenient expression of the evil tendencies of his 
time. He thus spiritualizes the popular idea, but he nowhere 
throws any light on the general character or the details of the 


1 There is, however, much to be said for the simpler explanation of 
ἐρχόμενον, which refers it to the future manifestation of the Parousia. Cf. 
Barnabas vi. 9, ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ μέλλοντα φανεροῦσθαι ὑμῖν ᾿Τησοῦν. 


176 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [7, 8. 


popular legend. The use of the plural in some Latin and 
Syriac authorities, supported by one or two cursives, bears witness 
to the difficulties felt by those who did not easily understand the 
drift of his language. 


εξηλθον (-θαν A) NA Bal. plus! cat. vg. (et. am. fu. demid.| harl. 
Bed. m® tol. prodzerunt, Leif. progress? sunt) sah. syr>odletP arm. Ir. :Ps. 
Chr.] εἰσηλθον KL Pal. pler. Thphyl. Oec. Clearly a correction caused 
by the evs which follows. The form found in A is probably original | o μὴ 
o“oroyouvres] ὁ μὴ ομολογων 12°F (83) | epyouevorv] om. /25* (236) 
70 209 (386) | capxe]+er τις οὐκ ομολογει ΤΡ ΧΡ ερχομενονεν σαρκι 0380098 
(-- Δ δὲ δθῦ9 (1.7) | ovros . . - αντιχριστος] h22 fallaces et antechristi sunt m8 : 
iste sunt fallaces et antichristi Leif.: ht sunt seductores et antichristi 
syrP ™S ; οὐτοι εἰσιν οἱ πλανοι και οι αντιχριστοι 78 10. 7 (505) J° 388 (56), 


8. βλέπετε ἑαυτούς] Cf. Mk. xiil. 9, βλέπετε ὑμεῖς ἑαυτούς : τ Co. 
xvi. το, βλέπετε ἵνα ἀφόβως γένηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς : and for the form 
of expression, 1 Jn. v. 21, φυλάξατε ἑαυτά. “The use of the 
active with the reflexive pronoun... emphasizes the duty of 
personal effort.” 

iva μὴ ἀπολέσητε KT. | The reading of B, etc., ἀπολέσητε 
-- ἠργασάμεθα---ἀπολάβητε, is almost certainly the true text. 
The other variants are easily explained as attempts to reduce 
this reading to uniformity, by using either the first or the 
second person throughout. 

ἠργασάμεθα] Cf. Jn. vi. 27, 28, ἐργάζεσθε... τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν 
μένουσαν : and for the thought of the reward, Jn. iv. 3, ἤδη ὃ ὃ 
θερίζων μισθὸν λαμβάνει καὶ συνάγει καρπὸν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἵνα ὁ 
σπείρων ὁμοῦ χαίρῃ καὶ ὃ θερίζων. Perhaps these passages offer a 
more probable source for the ideas of this verse than the quota- 
tion from Ru. 11. 12, ἀποτίσαι Κύριος τὴν ἐργασίαν σου" γένοιτο 
ὁ μισθός σου πλήρης παρὰ Κυρίου θεοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ, πρὸς ὃν ἦλθες 
πεποιθέναι ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ, Out of which Dr. Rendel 
Harris has elaborated his ingenious suggestion that the Lady to 
whom the Epistle is addressed was ‘‘a proselyte, a Gentile 
Christian, and a widow.” Holtzmann’s criticism of this suggestion 

s “allzu scharfsinnig” is not unmerited. It may be of interest 
to notice that the reference to Ru. ii. 12 is to be found in 
Wettstein, who has provided or anticipated far more of the best 
illustrative parallels than the acknowledgments of his work in 
later Commentaries would lead us to suppose. Wettstein also 
quotes the Targum, “retribuat tibi Deus retributionem bonam 
operum tuorum in hoc seculo et erit merces tua perfecta in 
seculo futuro a Deo Israelis,” and also Xen. Cyr. Exp. vii. ἧκες 
av πλήρη φέρων τὸν μισθόν. 

For ἀπολαμβάνειν, cf. Ro. 1. 27, ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει. 
ἀπολαμβάνοντες: Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 298 (p. 299), ἐὰν δέ τ νὰ 
προσοφειληται. . . εὐθέως ἀπολήμψῃ. 


8, 9. NOTES ON 2 JOHN 77 


eavrous 8 ABP Dam. etc.] avrovs Καὶ L Dam. Ir. Leif. | ἀπολεσητε, 
αἀπολαβητε τὲ (απολησθε δὰ A B 5. 13 40. 66**. 68. 73. 137 dsc fcr jst 
al. fere.!® cat. vg. sah. cop. syr“t arm. aeth. Ir. Leif. Ps.-Chr. Isid. Dam. 
Thphyleo™ Oec™] απόλεσωμεν, ἀπολάβωμεν K LP 31 al. plu. Thphyl™* 
Oect*t | εὐἰργάσαμεθα B (npy-) KLP 31 al. plu. sah. syr?™s Thphyltt 
Oect*t] εἰργασασθε N A 5. 13. 40. 66**. 68. 73. 137 d f 156: cat. vg. cop. 
syrbodlet ptxt arm. aeth. Ir. Leif. Ps.-Chr. Isid. Dam. Thphyl°°™ Oeco™ ; 
εἰργασαμεθα Kara A186 6364 (223) | πληρη] πληρης L Dam. (ὃ cf. Jn. 1. 14). 
According to Tischendorf’s note it would seem that what is probably the 
true text is supported by B sah. syrP ™ only. See note above. 


9. ὁ προάγων καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ] The phrase should 
be taken as ἃ whole. The sarcastic reference of προάγων to the 
claims of false teachers to the possession of a higher knowledge 
and more progressive intelligence was naturally misunderstood. 
The παραβαίνων of the eceptus was the inevitable result. 
What was not understood had to be corrected into an intelligible 
commonplace. If this were the true text, we should have to 
supply as object τὴν διδαχήν from the following ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ. But 
the originality of προάγων is obvious. For the use of προάγειν, 
Windisch quotes Sir. xx. 27, 6 σοφὸς ἐν λόγοις προάξει ἑαυτόν. 

The non-repetition of the article before μὴ μένων is signifi- 
cant. All “progress” is not condemned, but only such progress 
as does not fulfil the added condition of “abiding in the teaching.” 

ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] There is nothing in the context or 
the usage of the N.T. to suggest that rod Χριστοῦ should be re- 
garded as an objective genitive, the writer meaning by the phrase 
“the apostolical teaching about Christ.” Such an interpretation 
would seem to be the outcome of preconceived notions of what 
the author ougit to have meant rather than of what his words 
indicate. Cf. Jn. xviii. 19, ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν... περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς 
αὐτοῦ: Jn. vii. 16, ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὴ ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός 
pe... γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς, where there is the same tran- 
sition to the absolute use of the word which is found in this 
verse, (ΟἹ. also ΜΙ. vit. 28; Mik. ἵν: 2; Lk. iv. 22; Aciiti 42: 
Apoc. ii. 14 (τὴν διδαχὴν Bodady), 11. 15 (τῶν Νικολαιτῶν). The 
“teaching” no doubt includes the continuation of Christ’s work 
by His Apostles, but it begins in the work of Christ Himself. 
In the view of the writer all true teaching is but the application 
of ““ὁ λόγος ὁ éuds” He did not regard Paul or any other 
Apostle as the inventor of most of what was characteristic of the 
Christian Faith as he knew it. k 

θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει] Cf. τ Jn. ii, 22f., a passage of which this verse 
is probably a summary. It is hardly intelligible except in the 
light of that passage, or of teaching similar to that which it con- 
tains. The true revelation of God was given in Jesus Christ. 
He who rejects the truth about Christ cannot enjoy the fellow- 
ship with God which Christ has made possible for men. 

12 


178 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [9, 10. 


οὗτος καὶ κ-τ.λ.] Cf. 1 Jn. 11. 23 ff. and notes. As was pointed 
out in the Introduction and also in the notes on that passage, 
the words can refer equally well to Gnostic claims to a superior 
knowledge of the Father, and to Jewish opponents who shared 
with their Christian antagonists the belief in the God of Israel. 


τας (?mas)}om. /*1 (310) | o προάγων δὲ AB 98™S am. fu. harl. sah. 
boh. aeth.] οπαραβαινων K L Ρ al. pler. cat. syrbollet Ρ (gud transgreditur) 
arm. Eph. Thphyl. Oec. : guz vecedzt vg"'* demid. tol. Leif. Did!t | μένων 
ev Tn 1°] eumevwy Ty 31 | διδαχὴ 1°] ἀγαπη 13 | του---διδαχη 2°] om, 7} 355. 
356%. §260F (214) 70 358. 774. 906 (68) | τοῦ χριστου] του Ov L*™ (236) 7» 831 (1149) : 
om. 70 157 (29) | exer] zowzt arm. | μενων εν TH 2°] εμμενων τῇ 100 | μενων 
(?2°)] παραμενων 7} 56 (440) | ev 2°] om. AH (W) [διδαχὴ 25 ἐξ AB 13. 
27. 29. 66**. 68 vg. sah. syrPt arm. Did!#t Fulg.]+ezus syrbodletp Leif. : 
Ἔτου χριστου K LP al. pler. cat. boh-ed. aeth. Thphyl. Oec. : (Ὁ) του 
Ov 18 649 (125) | και Tov marepa και Tov υἱιον] δὲ BK LP al. pler. cat. vgcle 
sah. cop. syr>odlet Pp aeth. Leif. Did.] καὶ τὸν ww καὶ τὸν mpa A 13. 31 (om. 
τον 2°), 68 am. fu. demid. harl. tol. arm. Fulg, | καὶ tov viov] post exec 
L#7 (7) L¢ 208-116 (307) | exe 2°] pr. οὐκ J 260 (440), 


10. εἴ τις ἔρχεται k.t.A.| Cf. Didache xi. 1, 2, ds ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν 
διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα δέξασθε αὐτόν" ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς 
ὁ διδάσκων στραφεὶς διδάσκῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι, μὴ 
αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to indicate 
that this verse ‘‘at last discloses the special purpose of the whole 
Epistle.” Its purpose is clearly to encourage those to whom it 
is addressed to continue in the active exercise of the faith and 
love which they had learned from Christ and His Apostles, even to 
the point of refusing hospitality to those who claimed to come 
in Christ’s name, but who, in the writer’s opinion, were destroy- 
ing the work of Christ by their teaching. 

The form of the conditional sentence used presents the case 
as more than a mere possibility, rather as something not unlikely 
to happen. 

ἔρχεται πρὸς buds] The usage of ἔρχεσθαι in the Johannine 
Epistles is confined to the “coming” of Christ, or Antichrist, or 
of the brethren visiting another Church (3 Jn. 3), or of the Elder 
paying a formal visit (3 Jn. το, ἐὰν ἔλθω). It is dangerous to 
read a special sense into common words. But clearly the ac- 
companying condition, καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν od φέρει, limits the 
reference to those who claim to come as Christians, and to have 
a “teaching” to communicate to the members of the Church. 
The context excludes the idea that the writer is thinking of 
“casual visits of strangers.” Those to whom he would refuse 
recognition claim to be received as brethren by fellow-Christians. 
In his view their conduct has made that impossible. 

μὴ λαμβάνετε εἰς οἰκίαν] For the use of the verb, cf. Jn. 1. 12, 
ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν : Vi. 21, λαβεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον : XIil. 20, 
ὃ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω ἐμὲ λαμβάνει. 


10-19.] NOTES ON 2 JOHN 179 


χαίρειν... . μὴ λέγετε] Elsewhere in the N.T. χαίρειν is only 
used in the greeting at the beginning of Epistles (Ac. xv. 23, 
xxili. 26; Ja. i. 1). These passages throw no light on the 
question whether the welcome at meeting or the farewell greeting 
is meant. There is really nothing in the usage of the word or in 
the context to decide the question. We may perhaps compare 
Lk. x. 5, εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν εἰσέλθητε οἰκίαν πρῶτον λέγετε" Eipyvy τῷ οἴκῳ 
τούτῳ. In the LXX the use of χαίρειν in this sense is confined 
to the letters contained in the Books of the Maccabees. 


ει τις ερχεται] οτι εισερχεται 75 δ (60) | ταυτην] post διδαχην 31 | avTw] 
pr. ev 7°14 (335). 


11. This verse gives the grounds on which the injunctions of 
the preceding verse are based. The welcome and greeting con- 
templated are clearly such as express approval of the character 
and work of those who claim such reception. 

κοινωνεῖ) always expresses a participation realized in active 
intercourse. It never denotes a mere passing sharing. Cf. 
ἘΠῚ 22; ΤΡ Ν 17 

τοῖς πονηροῖς] The form of expression is chosen which lays 
preatest stiess)on) the adjective. “Cf. 1 Jn. i. 7, 8, 1. 2) 3); 
[foe oma 


o (?)] om. /# 14? (219) K?(S) | λεγων] post yap KL Ρ al. pler. cat. Ir. 
Thphyl. Oec. | avrw] om. K al.” Occ. | rovnpos|+ecce praedixt nobis ne 
in diem Domint condemnemint m® :+ecce praedixt nobis ut in diem 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi non confundamini vg**, Such additions are 
not uncommon in the text of the Speculum. 


12, 18. Conclusion. 

12. ὑμῖν] The position of the pronoun is perhaps emphatic. 
The writer of these Epistles is clearly well acquainted with the 
circumstances of those whom he addresses. 

οὐκ ἐβουλήθην] One of the more certain instances in the 
N.T. of the epistolary aorist. 

χάρτου καὶ μέλανος] Cf. the similar phrase in 3 Jn. 13, μέλανος 
καὶ καλάμου, and 2 Co. ili. 3, ov μέλανι ἀλλὰ πνεύματι. The 
material denoted is, of course, papyrus, the usual material for 
correspondence and for the cheaper kinds of books. Contrast 
2 Ti. iv. 13, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας. Cf. Jer xliii. (xxxvi.) 23, 
ἐξέλιπεν πᾶς 6 χάρτης εἰς TO πῦρ. 

γενέσθαι] If there is any difference of meaning between this 
word and the more usual ἐλθεῖν into which it has been altered in 
the Zextus Receptus, γενέσθαι seems rather to mean to “pay a 
visit” (cf. 1 Co. il. 3, xvi. το, ἵνα ἀφόβως γένηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς). 
The intercourse which the coming makes possible is emphasized 
rather than the actual fact of coming. But cf. Tebtunis Pap. 
li. 298 (p. 421), ἅμα τῷ λαβεῖν σε ταῦτά pov τὰ γράμματα γενοῦ 


180 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [12, 18. 


πρὸς μέ, and also Jn. vi. 21 (ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), 25, πότε ὧδε 
γέγονας; 

στόμα πρὸς στόμα] Cf. 5 Jn. 14, and 1 Cor. xiii. 12, πρόσωπον 
πρὸς πρόσωπον : Nu. ΧΙ. ὃ, στόμα κατὰ στόμα (MD OX 7D). 

ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ κιτ.λ.] Cf τ 7η.1. 4; 3 Jn. 4. The object of the 
proposed visit is the same as that which the writer had in view in 
writing the First Epistle. It is generally to be noticed that the 
closest parallels in the Johannine writings are given some slightly 
different turn in different circumstances, which suggests that in 
both cases the writer is ws¢zg his own favourite expressions rather 
than copying those of another. 


exwy N° A? BK LP al. pler. cat. vg. etc.] exw N* A* 27. 29. 61. 64. 
180 o8*: εἰχον A* (17) arm. | usw] post ypadew 99 8]. scr | ypadew] 
ypaya A 17. 73 g°% | οὐκ] pr. sed arm. | μελανος και χαρτου Sah, | adda 
ελπιΐζω NBKLP al. longe. plur. sah, syrbodletp Thphyl. Ocec.] ελπιζω 
yap A 5. 13. 27. 29. 66**. 73 ds al.!° cat. vg. cop. arm. aeth.: edmifwy 
68 | γενεσθαι NAB 5. 6. 7. 13. 27. 33. 65. 66**. 68. 137. 180 d&* vg. 
syr? Thphyl. Oec®°™ (παραγενεσθαι)} ελθειν K LP al. longe. plur. cat. tol. 
sah, syrbodl arm. aeth. Oec*t; wzdere boh-ed. | λαλησαι] λαλησομεν 7} 3% 
(-) | ἡμων SK LP al. pler. cat. syrbodletp arm. Thphyl. Oec.] vuwy AB 
5. 13. 27. 29. 65. 66**. 68. 69. 73. IO1. 104 cS al.8 vg. cop. aeth. : meum 
sah.: om. 21. 37. 56. Nestle retains ἡμων in his Greek text, but it is 
probably a correction into conformity with the common reading in the 
First Epistle | πεπληρωμενὴ ἡ SN (nv δὲ ἢ) B vg. (et. fu. demid. harl. tol.) 
Thphyl.] 7 πεπληρωμενὴ AK L P al. omnvid cat. am. Oec. 





13. The natural explanation of σέ and τὰ τέκνα is undoubtedly 
that which identifies the mother with her children, the Church, 
with the individual members of which it is composed. There is 
no difficulty in inventing hypotheses to account in other ways fo1 
the change between the singular and plural (cf. especially the 
ὑμᾶς of the preceding verse), and the absence of any greeting 
from the “elect sister” herself. But is it worth while in view of 
the fact that so much simpler an explanation lies ready to hand? 
Cf. Windisch, ‘Die Grusse (nicht der Neffen und Nichten, 
sondern) der Glaubensgewissen am Orte des Schreibers.” 

τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς] Cf. ver. 1. The word does not occur elsewhere 
in the Johannine writings except in the Apocalypse (xvii. 14, οἱ 
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί). But the writer’s use of 
it is perfectly natural in the light of Jn. xv. 16, 19, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ 
ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς, and other passages in the Fourth Gospel and 
also in the Synoptists. Cf. 1 P. v. 13; Ro. xvi. 13. 


acmatera oe] saluta syrP ΧΕ aeth. | rns αδελῴφης] matris boh-cod. | 
THs EkNeKTS] τὴς εκκλησιας 15. 26 fu. : om. 73: THS EV εφεσω 114:+7 XapLs 
μεθ υμων 68. 69. 103 (μετα σου) syrbodletp arm.:+gralza δέ caritas 
uobiscum aeth.:+aunv KL al, pler. cat. fu. syrbodletp aethPP Thphyi. 
Oec. 


NOTES ON 3 JOHN. 


1. ὃ πρεσβύτερος] Cf. 2 Jn. 1 note. 

Γαίῳ] Three persons of this name are mentioned in the N.T. 
(1) Gaius the Macedonian, who is mentioned together with 
Aristarchus in connection with the tumult in the theatre at 
Ephesus (Ac. xix. 29). They are described as Macedonians, 
fellow travellers of S. Paul. (2) Gaius of Derbe, one of S. Paul’s 
companions on his last journey to Jerusalem. (3) Gaius of 
Corinth. Cf. Ro. xvi. 23, Tatos 6 ξένος μου καὶ ὅλης τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας: I Co. 1. 14, Κρίσπον καὶ Τάιον, whom S. Paul 
mentions as the only Corinthians, besides the household of 
Stephanas, whom he had baptized himself. Of this Gaius, 
Origen says that according to tradition he was the first Bishop 
of Thessalonica. Cf. Origen, Comm. in Ro. x. 41, “ Fertur sane 
traditione maiorum quod hic Gaius primus episcopus fuerit 
Thessalonicensis ecclesiae.” Dom Chapman’s ingenious attempt 
to connect the Epistle with Thessalonica on this ground is not 
convincing (see Introd.). Coenen (ZW7Zh., 1872, p. 264 ff.) has 
attempted to show that Gaius of Corinth is intended in the 
“fictitious” address of this Epistle, on the ground of the 
similarity of the conditions prevailing here and at Corinth, as 
testified by the Pauline Epistles. The similarities are of too 
general a character either to compel identification or even to 
make it probable. Coenen’s interpretation of ὁ ἐρχόμενος (2 Co. 
ΧΙ. 4) as a “pillar apostle whom 5. Paul’s opponents threatened to 
invite to Corinth to overthrow his authority,” is certainly not 
helped by the statement in our Epistle of the Elder’s intention 
of paying a visit to the Church of Gaius. But perhaps it is not 
necessary now to spend time in dealing with the theory that the 
two smaller Johannine Epistles owe their origin to the desire of 
the “great unknown” to gain credence for the view that his 
more important forgeries (the Gospel and First Epistle) were 
really the work of the son of Zebedee. As Windisch says, “III. 


(z.e. 3 Jn.) fur Fiktion zu erklaren, widerspricht allen gesunden 
181 


182 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN 15: 


Sinnen.” The statement in Const. Aposfol. vii. 46, that Gaius 
was the first Bishop of Pergamus, is of too slight historical value 
to guide our conjectures as to the recipient of this Epistle (u7d. 
Introd.). Bartlet’s suggestion of Thyatira does not claim more 
than relative probability. But all such attempts at identification 
of the Church or the individual addressed are mere speculation. 
Where our knowledge is inadequate the building up of hypothesis 
is of the nature of pastime rather than of serious work. Truer 
scholarship is seen in Harnack’s less interesting judgment, 
‘Gaius, to whom (the Epistle) is addressed, receives no title of 
honour. ‘That he occupied a prominent position in his Church 
is clear from what follows.” In Commentaries, if not in peri- 
odicals, the rule should be remembered that “ there is a time to 
keep silence.” 

τῷ ἀγαπητῷ] A favourite word of the writer of these Epistles, 
in which it occurs ten times, though it is not found in the 
Gospel. For its use in salutations, cf. Ro. i. 7, xvi. 5, 8, 9, 12 ; 
ColAiv: 9: ΕΠ; 2 1112; Pinlent, x, 

dv... ἀληθείαι! Cf. 2 Jn. τὶ (notes), 


eyw] om. boh-cod. 


2. περὶ πάντων] must be taken with εὐοδοῦσθαι. The writer 
prays for the prosperity of Gaius in all respects, and especially 
in the matter of health. There is no need to alter περὶ πάντων 
into the conventional πρὸ πάντων of epistolary introductions. 
The converse change would be far more likely to have taken 
place. 

εὐοδοῦσθαι] Bartlet’s ingenious conjecture that the other name 
of Gaius may have been Euodias, is again outside the sphere of 
commentary. ‘The word is part of the common and conventional 
language of Epistles. For its use in the N.T., compare Ro. i. 10; 
1/Co: xvi. 2. Cf. also Hermas, Sem. vit 3, δ. 

ὑγιαίνειν] The word may fossibly suggest that Gaius’ health 
had caused his friends anxiety; but it certainly does not 
necessarily do so. Its use in letters is conventional. Cf. 
Oxyrh. Pap. 11. 293 (p. 293), Διονύσιος Διδύμῃ τῇ ἀδελφῇ 
πλειστὰ χαίρειν καὶ διὰ παντὸς] ὑγιαίνειν, and 11. 292 (p. 292), 
πρὸ δὲ πάντων ὑγιαίνειν σε εὔχομαι ἀβασκάντως τὰ ἄριστα πράσσων. 

καθὼς. .. ψυχή] Cf. Philo, Quis rer. div. heres, p. 514 (Wend- 
land, ili. p. 65). Philo is commenting on “ per’ εἰρήνης τραφείς " 
(Gn. xv. 15). Πότε οὖν τοῦτο συμβήσεται; ὅταν εὐοδῇ μὲν τὰ ἐκτὸς 
πρὸς εὐπορίαν καὶ εὐδοξίαν, εὐοδῇ δὲ τὰ σώματος πρὸς ὑγίειάν τε 
καὶ ἰσχύν, εὐοδῇ δὲ τὰ ψυχῆς πρὸς ἀπόλαυσιν ἀρετῶν. The refer- 
ence is to be found in Wettstein. 


και ὑγιαινειν] om. boh-codd. [καθως]- και 7° 864 (137), 


3-5. | NOTES ON 3 JOHN 183 


3. ἐχάρην] Cf. 2 Jn. 4; Ph. iv. το. 

ἐρχομένων. . . καὶ μαρτυρούντων] The tense almost precludes 
the reference of the words to a single occasion, and their 
evidence should not be so interpreted in attempts to discover 
the historical setting of the Epistles. They suggest rather the 
means by which the Elder kept himself in touch with the 
Churches for whose welfare he regarded himself as responsible, 
and over which he exercised his supervision. 

σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ] As always in the Johannine writings, “ truth” 
covers every sphere of life, moral, intellectual, spiritual. Those 
who visited Ephesus had from time to time borne witness that 
Gaius’ whole life corresponded to the highest standard of life and 
conduct. 

περιπατεῖς] Cf. note on τ Jn. 1. 6. 


exapnv yap A BCK L Pal. pler. boh-codd. syrbodletp Thphyl. Oec.] 
om. yap & 4. 5. 6. 13. 25. 65. 100 ds* vg. boh-ed. sah. arm. aeth. | cov] 
σοι /*° (328) sah. (uid.) | τη αληθεια] τὴν αληθειαν 75.158. 1100 (2305): 
carttate boh-cod. | συ] pr. και 22. 56. 80, 98 arm-codd. (uid.): om. A 37. 


4. μειζοτέραν] Cf. ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ, Eph. iii. 8; Deissmann, Bibel 
Siudien, p. 142, who quotes Pap. Lond. 130, μεγιστότατος. 

τούτων] explained by the clause introduced by ἵνα. The 
plural is used instead of the singular, as the writer is thinking of 
more than one occasion on which he had experienced the joy of 
which he speaks. If this explanation of the plural is correct 
there is no need to correct the text by supplying 7 before ἵνα, as 
Wilamowitz suggests (Hermes, 1898, p. 531). In his interesting 
note on the Epistle he does not offer any explanation of τούτων. 
Cf. Jn. xv. 13, μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει, ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν 
αὐτοῦ 67. The 7 is actually found in one Greek cursive. 

χαράν] The variant χάριν is probably due to a scribe, who 
substituted a commoner phrase. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 15. For χαρά, 
Chit, ΤΠ 1 ΠΣ jn ree. ἘΠ ΤΗΣ ἡ. 

τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα] Those over whom he exercises his fatherly 
supervision, whether actually his ‘‘children in the faith” or not. 
The bearing of this phrase on the meaning of τέκνα in the Second 
Epistle should not be overlooked. 


μειζοτεραν] μειζοτερον 128-157 (_): μειζονα 137 | τουτων οὐκ exw] post 
χαρὰν 7/77 (33) 75 05 192 (69) OM (154) | rovrwy] ταύτης 27. 29. 31. 40. 
66**, 68. 69. 73 ds al. fere. sah. boh-ed. syrbod! Dam, | οὐκ exw] post 
xapav C 31. 68 aeth. | ove] om. 7°54 (137) | exwv B* | χαραν NACKLP 
al. pler. cat. tol. arm. sah.] yap B 7. 35 vg. cop. | wa] pr. ἡ 69 vg. 
(matorem horum.. . quam ut) vid. sup. | axovow /* 71 8 (301) | rexva] 
σπλαγχνα 75 134 (335). 


5. ἀγαπητέ] Cf. vv. 1, 2. 
πιστὸν ποιεῖς} either (1) “thou doest a faithful thing,” an 
action corresponding to the faith that is in thee, which is the 


184 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN [5, 6. 


natural meaning of the word, if we consider the general usage of 
the writer, though there is no exact parallel; or (2) “thou 
makest sure whatsoever thou mayest do,” thou doest that which 
shall not ‘‘fail of its true issue,” shall receive its due reward. 
Cf. Xen. (quoted by Wettstein) ἂν μὲν δέῃ ταῦτα ποιεῖν πιστά, 
ὁμήρους δοτέον. 

ὃ ἐὰν ἐργάσῃ] The judgment is expressed absolutely, the 
present tense being used. The ὃ ἐὰν ἐργάσῃ covers both the 
past action, to which the recipients of Gaius’ hospitality have 
borne public witness before the Ephesian Church, and the future 
benefits, which the Elder feels confident that Gaius will confer at 
his request. 

καὶ τοῦτο ξένους] For καὶ τοῦτο, cf. 1 Co. vi. 6, ἀδελφὸς μετὰ 
ἀδελφοῦ κρίνεται, καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ ἀπίστων : Ph. 1. 28, ἔνδειξις ἜΠΗ 
ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ: Eph. i . ὃ, τῇ γὰρ χάριτι 
ἐστὲ σεσωσμένοι διὰ πίστεως" καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ὃ ὑμῶν. Its use in 
Ro. xiii. 11 15 rather different. 

The recognition of the duty of φιλοξενία among Christians is 
fully testified, 1 Ti. v. ro; Ro. xii. 133 He. xil. 2; Bees 
as also the special duties of the leaders in this respect, 1 Ti. 
111. 2; Tit. 1.8. Cf. also Herm. Sim. ix. 27, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ 
δεκάτου, οὗ ἦσαν δένδρα σκεπάζοντα πρόβατά τινα, οἱ πιστεύσαντες 
τοιοῦτοί εἰσιν ἐπίσκοποι φιλόξενοι, οἵτινες ἡδέως εἰς τοὺς οἴκους 
ἑαυτῶν πάντοτε ὑπεδέξαντο τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἄτερ ὑποκρίσεως 

. οὗτοι οὗν πάντες σκεπασθήσονται ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου διαπαντός. 
Justin, Apol. i. 67, αὐτὸς (sc. ὃ προεστὼς) ἐπικουρεῖ. .. καὶ τοῦς 
παρεπιδήμοις οὖσι ξένοις. 

πιστον}] pr. uenim et boh-cod.: πιστως 75 115 (310) be ie XB 
CKLP al. omn"4 cat. etc.] epyagfm A | τους] om. H5* (WV) | και Touro 
NABC 17. 27. 29. 33. 66**. 68. 81. 97. 126™E vg. πριν an cop. arm, 


aeth.] καὶ ravra 75 Pf (83): Kat εἰς Tous K L Peal. pler. ds‘ (om. Tous) cat. 
Thphyl. Oec. 


6. ot ἐμαρτύρησαν κι-τ.λ.} The ἀγάπη to which they bore 
witness was clearly manifested in the hospitable reception of 
those who were strangers to him, some of whom must subse- 
quently have visited Ephesus. It is natural to interpret this 
verse as referring to one of the occasions mentioned in ver. 3, or 
more than one if the witness is to be regarded as a single fact, 
though including a series of acts. 

ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας] The absence of the article is significant. 
The anarthrous phrase denotes a meeting of the Church at 
which the witness was borne. Cf. 1 Co. xiv. 19, 35, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ: 
Jn. xviii. 20, ἐν συναγωγῇ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ : also vi. 59. 

καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας] The reading ποιήσας προπέμψεις 1S 
probably a correction. καλῶς ποιήσεις is ἃ Common phrase in 
letters, and no special stress should be laid onit. It is a con- 


6, 7.] NOTES ON 3 JOHN 185 


ventional expression. In many papyrus letters the double future 
occurs. Many letter writers would have written καλῶς ποιήσεις 
προπέμψεις. But the textual evidence does not justify our 
attributing such a solecism to the author. For the phrase, cf. 
Tebtunis Pap. i. 56, p. 167, καλῶς οὖν ποιήσῃς εὐχαριστῆναι 
πρῶτον μὲν τοῖς θεοῖς δεύτερον δὲ σῶσαι ψυχὰς πολλάς: 57, p. 168, 
καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις ἀπολύσας αὐτούς : Oxyrh. Pap. li. 294 (p. 294), 
εὖ οὖν ποιήσις γράψας μοι ἀντιφώνησιν : 297 (p. 298), καλῶς 
ποιήσεις γράψεις διὰ πιττακίων : 299 (p. 300), καλῶς ποιήσεις 
πέμψεις μοι αὐτάς: 300 (p. 301), καλῶς ποιήσεις ἀντιφωνήσασά 
μοι ὅτι ἐκομίσου: i. 116 (p. 182), καλῶς οὖν ποιήσαντες δότε 
παράμμωνι. It is so common that a schoolboy uses it sarcasti- 
cally, 11. 119, καλῶς ἐποίησες οὐκ ἀπένηχές με pete σοῦ εἰς πόλιν. 
Cf. also ps.-Aristias, 39, καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας 
σπουδῆς ἀξίως ἐπιλεξάμενος ἄνδρας κιτ.λ. : 46, καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις 
«ον προστάξας. 
προπέμψας] Cf. Tit. iii, 13, σπουδαίως πρόπεμψον ἵνα μηδὲν 
αὐτοῖς λείπη. It is also found in Acts and the earlier Pauline 
Epistles (Ro. ; 1, 2 Co.). 
ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ] Cf. τ Th. 11. 12, εἰς τὸ περιπατεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ 
θεοῦ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς κιτιλ. The adverb is also found with the 
following genitives : τῶν ἁγίων (Ro. xvi. 2), τῆς κλήσεως (Eph. iv. 1), 
Tov εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ph. i. 27), τοῦ κυρίου (Col. i. το). 
ot] ο K | cov] σοι 75 & (328): om, 7} 83 (35) | τὴν ἀγαπην AH® (61) 
Jo A737) | ἘΚ Κλ σα] pr. τὴς 71: 7006 εἰσς 101 A Οὐδ (154): ecclestarum 
eorum boh-ed. | ous] ov B* | ποιήσεις προπεμψας τὲ Α Β ΚΤ, etc. (ποιεις 
ἡ. 18. 27. 29. 68 demid. tol. al.) am. fu. tol. demid. boh-sah.] ποιησας 


προπεμψεις C vg. (benefaciens deduces) arm. (deducts) | agwws] αξιους 
75 10. 27 (505) | του θεου] τω θῶ 75 108 (505) Οὐ (154): om. /** (236). 


7. ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος] gives the reason why they deserve 
such help. For the phrase, cf. Ac. v. 41, χαίροντες - -- Om 
κατηξιώθησαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀτιμασθῆναι. We may also 
compare Ro. 1. 5, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. Dom Chapman’s 
interpretation of the phrase as hinting at ‘withdrawal from the 
scene of persecution,” or even banishment, at a time when the 
mere fact of being a Christian was enough to procure condem- 
nation (cf. 1 P. iv. 14; εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε é ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ: 15, μὴ ὡς 
φονεύς. .. εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός, μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω) is wholly un- 
natural. As Bartlet has pointed out, it might be possible if the 
phrase used were διὰ τὸ ὄνομα. 

The absolute use of τὸ ὄνομα, which is found in the passage 
quoted from Acts (cf. also Ph. il. 9), is also to be found in 
Ignatius (ad 221. 111. εἰ yap καὶ δέδεμαι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι : Vil. εἰώθασιν 
γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες 
ἀνάξια θεοῦ: ad Philad. x. δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα). The “name” is 
clearly that of Christ. The fact that their having gone out on 


186 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [7, 8. 


behalf of the name is put forward as the reason why they deserve 
hospitality, certainly does not carry with it the necessity of 
regarding the “‘name” as that of “brother.” Missionaries no 
doubt proclaimed the brotherhood of believers, but their first 
duty was to proclaim the name of Christ. 
ἐξῆλθαν] probably from Ephesus, though Dr. Westcott’s more 
cautious statement, ‘from some Church well known to the 
Apostle and Gaius,” is alone completely justified by the facts 
known to us from the Epistle and by the language used. 
μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες] The form of the sentence (μηδέν) states 
more than the bare fact. It was their custom, a custom which 
emphasized the character of their work, to carry out the spirit of 
the Commission to the Twelve (Mt. x. 8, δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν 
δότε), and the tradition established by Paul (cf. 2 Co. xii. 14, 
ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Kal od καταναρκήσω οὐ yap ζητῶ τὰ 
ὑμῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὑμᾶς : τ ΤῊ. i. 9, νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ 
μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν ἐκηρύξαμεν εἰς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ 
θεοῦ. They carried out as their rule of mission work the Pauline 
custom of refusing support from those amongst whom they were 
working as Missionaries. ‘They had therefore a special claim on 
the hospitality and help of the Churches in places through 
which they had to pass. There is an interesting parallel to the 
sentence in the Didache xi. 6, ἐξερχόμενος δὲ ὃ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν 
λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον, ἕως οὗ αὐλισθῇ, ἐὰν δὲ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ Wevdo- 
προφήτης ἐστίν. It is hardly necessary to deal at length with the 
interpretation which connects ἐξῆλθαν with ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν, and 
bases their claim to help on the fact that they had been expelled 
from their home because of their faith, “‘eiecti erant propter 
religionem ab extraneis, nihilque secum apportauerunt ” (Carpzov 
quoted by Poggel). ΄ 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν] For λαμβάνειν with ἀπό, cf. Mt. xvii. 25, ἀπὸ 
τίνων λαμβάνουσιν τέλη; and for the contrast between Christians 
and ἐθνικοί, cf. Mt. v. 47, ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, 
τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν ; 
του ονοματος NA ΒΟ ΚΙ7ΙῚΡ al. plu. cat. am. fu. sah. cop. syr? &t arm- 
ed. Thphyl. Oec. Βεά.7- αὐτου minusc. mu. vg. demid. syrbedletp arm- 
cod. aeth. | λαμβανοντες] AaBovres 70 157 (29) | απο] παρα 5. 13. 29. 118 


ds al.° | εθνικων NA BC al.” fu. tol. (gente/ébus) boh-ed.] εθνων K LP 
al. longe. plu. boh-codd. : geztébus vg. am. demid. sah, 


8. ἡμεῖς οὖν] In view of their policy of refusing support from 
the heathen to whom they minister, we Christians are under a 
special obligation to do what we can to forward their work. 

ὀφείλομεν] Cf. τ Jn. 11. 6, 111. 16, iv. rz, and Jn. xiii. 14. 

ὑπολαμβάνειν] The ἀπολαμβάνειν of the TZexius Receptus 
must be merely a scribe’s error; the word is always used in the 
sense of receiving or getting, or getting back what is due (cf. 


8, 9.] NOTES ON 3 JOHN 187 


2 Jn. 8, μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβητε). ὑπολαμβάνειν occurs else- 
where in the N.T. only in the Lucan writings, in the various 
senses of answer, suppose, receive (νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν 
ὀφθαλμῶν, Ac. i. 9). The usage of the LXX is similar. But in 
other Greek it is often used in the sense of receiving with 
hospitality, and especially of supporting. Cf. Strabo, p. 653, οἱ 
εὔποροι τοὺς ἐνδεεῖς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. It suggests support as well 
as welcome. 
τοὺς τοιούτους] Cf. 1 Co. xvi. 16, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑποτάσσησθε 
τοῖς τοιούτοις καὶ παντὶ τῷ συνεργοῦντι, and ver. 18, ἐπιγινώσκετε 
οὖν τοὺς τοιούτους. All who act on such principles have a claim 
on our help and support. 
συνεργοὶ γιν. τῇ ἀληθείᾳ] The word may mean either (1) 
become fellow-workers with them in the cause of the truth, or 
(2) become fellow-workers with the Truth. In support of (1) are 
quoted 2 Co. vill. 23, κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς συνεργός : Col. 
iv. 11, οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. There is 
no other example of συνεργός with the dative in the N.T., the 
usual construction being with the genitive, either of the person 
or the work, or with a preposition. But the dative with συνεργεῖν 
is not uncommon. Cf. Ja. 11. 22, ἣ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις 
αὐτοῦ. Cf. also 1 Es. vil. 2, συνεργοῦντες τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τῶν 1. : 
1 Mac. xil. 1, 6 καιρὸς αὐτῷ συνεργεῖ. In view of this usage, and 
the writer’s use of ἀλήθεια, which he often almost personifies, the 
second is more probably the correct interpretation. Cf. ver. 12, 
ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας. 
νπολαμβανειν % A BC* 13, 16. 27. 29. 46. 66**. 68. 73. τ2όπιε Oecd] 
post rovovrovs 75 5 (316): ἀπολαμβανειν Cav K L Ρ al. pler. cat. Thphyl. 


| γινωμεθα)] post αληθεια 75 351 (326): γενωμεθα K 42. 69. 105 al. fere.}° 
cat. Thphyl: γινομεθα C 100 | αληθεια] εκκλησια N* A. 


9. ἔγραψα] The addition of av is clearly an attempt to 
remove the (supposed) difficulty of admitting that a letter 
written by an Apostle has not been preserved, or could have 
failed in its object. It must have been added at a time when 
the supposed reference to the Second Epistle was unknown, or 
at any rate not accepted. 

τι] Cf. Mt. xx. 20, αἰτοῦσά τι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. It must be taken 
as strictly indefinite. It suggests neither something great 
(Gal. ii. 6, τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι} nor something insignificant. 
Its omission in the Zextus Receptus is probably due to error. 

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ] The local Church of which Gaius and Diotrephes 
were members. Cf. 5. Paul’s usage in his earlier Epistles 
(1, 2 Th.; Gal.; 1, 2 Co.) and the usage of the Apocalypse 
(1. 11 τ. δἴο:): 

In spite of the close resemblance in form between the 


188 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [9. 


Second and Third Epistles, which certainly favours the view 
that they are companion Epistles, and the many points of 
similarity in the circumstances of the Churches to which, or to 
members of which, they are addressed, the context of ver. 9 
makes it almost impossible to see in the words ἔγραψά τι τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ a reference to the Second Epistle. (Cf. Introduction, 
Ixxxilil.) It must, of course, be admitted that Diotrephes probably 
favoured, or at least condoned, the Gnostic or other teaching 
which the writer condemns in the Second Epistle. And in 
spite of what Harnack has said, it is doubtful whether that 
Epistle “‘must have contained a reference to the sins of Diotre- 
phes if it had been addressed to the Church of which he was 
a member.” But ver. 9 must be read as it stands, between verses 
ὃ and το. The reception, or the refusal to receive, the Mission- 
ary brethren is the subject of both these verses. ‘The letter to 
which reference is made in the intermediate verse, and which 
the writer fears that Diotrephes will suppress or persuade his 
Church to neglect, if, indeed, he has not already done so, must 
have contained some reference to the question of the hospitable 
reception of these brethren. If we add to this the totally 
different aim of the two letters, on which Harnack rightly lays 
stress, the warning wof to receive false brethren in the Second, 
and the exhortation to welcome the true brethren in the Third 
Epistle, the case against the supposed reference is convincingly 
strong. The most natural interpretation of the words is that 
the Elder wrote to the Church a letter of similar content to the 
private letter to Gaius, exhorting them to show hospitality to 
Demetrius and the brethren whom he commends to their care: 
but knowing the power of Diotrephes to oppose his wishes he 
wrote a private letter to Gaius, a member of the Church on 
whose loyalty he could thoroughly depend. The Second Epistle, 
with its sharply expressed prohibition of any intercourse with 
those who claimed the rights of brethren, but who had forfeited 
them by their false teaching, fails altogether to correspond to 
the requirements of the case. 

ἀλλ᾽] The letter had been written, but the writer feared that 
it would fail to secure the carrying out of his wishes. 

φιλοπρωτεύων] not found elsewhere, except in Patristic writ- 
ings, where it is derived from this passage. A scholion in 
Matthaei (p. 162) explains it as equivalent to 6 ὑφαρπάζων τὰ 
πρωτεῖα. The cognate φιλόπρωτος and φιλοπρωτεία are both 
found. Of the passages quoted by Wettstein in illustration of 
the word two will suffice: Plutarch, Alcdiad. p. 192, φύσει δὲ 
πολλῶν ὄντων Kal μεγάλων παθῶν ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ φιλόνεικον ἰσχυρότα- 
τον ἣν καὶ τὸ φιλόπρωτον: Agesil. 596 D, φιλονεικότατος yap dv 
καὶ θυμοειδέστατος ἐν τοῖς νέοις καὶ πάντα πρωτεύειν βουλόμενος. 


9, 10.] NOTES ΟΝ 3 JOHN 189 


The word expresses ambition, the desire to have the first place 
in everything. It should not be pressed either to prove or dis- 
prove the possession by Diotrephes of an “ episcopal” position. 
It certainly does not suggest “aspiring to a place zof already 
obtained.” 

αὐτῶν] The members of the Church to which the Elder 
had written. For the construction, cf. 1 Co. i. 2, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ 

θεοῦ. . . ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 
οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς) ἐπιδέχεσθαι is not found in the N.T., 
except here and in the following verse, where it is used in a 
somewhat different sense. Diotrephes refuses to recognize the 
authority of the Elder and those who side with him. Cf. 
τ Mac. x. 1, κατελάβετο Πτολεμαίδα καὶ ἐπεδέξαντο αὐτὸν καὶ éBact- 
λευσεν ἐκει : ΧΙΪ. 8, ἐπεδέξατο. . . τὸν ἄνδρα. . . ἐνδόξως : ΧΙ]. 43, 
xiv. 22. In papyri it is used for ‘‘accepting” the terms, of a 
lease, etc. (esp. ἐπιδέχομαι μισθώσασθαι). For its use in ver. ro 
we may compare Oxyrh. Pap. 11. 281 (p. 272), ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ἐπι- 
δεξαμένη αὐτὸν εἰς τὰ τῶν γόνεων μου οἰκητήρια λειτὸν παντελῶς ὄντα. 
εγραψα] εγραψας Β sah. :-αν ®° 13. 15. 18. 26. 29. 33**. 36. 40. 49. 
Go"*. 73. 160 d5* cat.vgs εγγροαι εα ΡΠ τὶ A BC 7. 20: 66**. 68 sah, cop. 
arm.] om. K L P al. pler. vg. syrbodletp aeth. Thphyl. Oec. | αλλ] guda 
sah. | 0] ore 75 106. 3% (170) | avrwr] pr. τὴ αληθεια 75 118 (156) | Acorpedys] 
Διοτροφης 75 38: (233) boh-cod.: Διατρεῴφης AH (61) | οτρεφης H ὃ (Ψ) 

| ov] ovde A! (61) | αποδέχεται 75 351: (96). 


10. διὰ τοῦτο] Because of his refusal to recognize our 
authority, and the lengths to which he has gone in opposing 
us in consequence. 

ἐὰν ἔλθω] Those who find in the Second Epistle the letter 
to which ver. 9 refers naturally see in these words a reference 
to ver. 12 of that Epistle (ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς). They 
are equally well explained by the expectation expressed in ver. 14 
of this letter. The writer perhaps speaks somewhat less con- 
fidently (ἐάν) of his coming than he does of the arrival of false 
teachers in the Church to which 2 jn. is addressed (εἴ τις 
épxerar). But the difference between the two constructions 
cannot be pressed. 

ὑπομνήσω] Cf. Jn. xiv. 26, ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν 
ἐγώ. The Elder will recall to them the whole conduct of their 
leader and show it in its true light. 

τὰ ἔργα] Cf. Jn. iii. το ff. (ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. .. 
ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα). The writer is confident that the 
conduct of Diotrephes will not stand the light of truth, and 
that the Church will recognize the fact. 

λόγοις πονηροῖς x.t.A.] Two accusations are brought against 
Diotrephes: his boastful opposition to the Elder and his friends, 
and his harsh action in the matter of the Missionaries. 


190 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [10. 


phuapey| Cf. 1 Ti. v. 13, od povov dé dpyat ἀλλὰ Kat φλύαροι 
(werbosae, vg.) καὶ περίεργοι, λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα. Ocecu- 
menius Nae ie ἀντὶ τοῦ λοιδορῶν, κακολογῶν. The word is not 
found elsewhere in the N.T. It emphasizes the emptiness of 
the charges which Diotrephes brings against the Elder in so 
many words. 

μὴ ἀρκεσθεὶς ἐ ἐπὶ τούτοις] Cf. τ Ti. vi. ὃ, τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα: 
He. ΧΙ]. 5, ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν. The construction with ἐπί 
is not found elsewhere in the N.T. The nearest parallel to this 
passage is, perhaps, 2 Mac. v. 15, οὐκ ἀρκεσθεὶς δὲ τούτοις κατετόλ- 
μησεν εἰς τὸ. . . ἱερὸν εἰσελθεῖν. 

οὔτε. . . καί] For the construction, cf. Jn. iv. 11, οὔτε ἄντλημα 
ἔχεις καὶ TO φρέαρ ἐστὶν βαθύ. 

ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφούς] Cf. note on ver. 9. This refusal 
to receive the brethren probably has special reference to some 
former visit of the Missionaries, when Diotrephes refused to 
receive them in spite of the commendatory letter which they 
brought with them. But the present indicates a general practice 
rather than a particular incident. The words may simply mean 
that D. will not recognize as true Christians the brethren who 
side with the Presbyter. He will recognize neither the Presbyter 
nor his followers. It is better, however, not to exclude the 
reference to Diotrephes’ former ill-treatment of those whom the 
Elder now commends to Gaius. The question of the welcome 
to be given to those who went from place to place ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
ὀνόματος was an important one at the time, and probably for 
some time afterwards. Cf. Didache xii. 1, πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος 
ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου δεχθήτω ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες αὐτὸν γνώσεσθε, 
and the whole chapter, esp. § 5 εἰ δ᾽ οὐ θέλει οὕτω ποιεῖν, χρισ- 
τέμπορός ἐστιν" προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων. 

τοὺς βουλομένους] sc. ἐπιδέχεσθαι. His custom is to put every 
hindrance in the way of their carrying out their wishes, or he 
actually prevents them. The description of his action does not 
decide his position. The words used express action possible 
either in the case of a “‘ monarchical” bishop, or of an influential 
and self-willed leader. 

ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει] Jn. ix. 34f. is rightly quoted in 
illustration. But the difference in tense should also be noticed 
(καὶ ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω). Again a policy or practice is described 
rather than a single incident. And the words cannot be used to 
determine the exact position of Diotrephes. Even if he had 
already obtained the ‘‘monarchical” position he could not have 
inflicted the penalty of excommunication without the concurrence 
of the whole Church. And a leading presbyter might well 
succeed in forcing his will on the community. The words, 
therefore, only indicate the position of power to which he had 


10, 11.] NOTES ON 3 JOHN IOI 


attained. And they do not determine whether the sentence of 
excommunication had been actually carried out, either in the 
case of those who wished to receive the Missionaries to whom 
reference is made in this Epistle, or in any other case. 

The suggestion of Carpzov, revived by Poggel, to make τοὺς 
ἀδελφούς the object of ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει, involves a con- 
struction which is intolerably harsh. The writer’s love of 
parenthesis, even if ὃ εἰπών is the true reading in Jn. 1. 15, 
hardly goes so far as this. And the arguments by which it is 
supported are not convincing: (1) Diotrephes could not have 
expelled those whose only offence was the desire to show 
hospitality to the Missionaries ; (2) if he succeeded in preventing 
them from carrying out their wishes, why should he go further ? 


υπομνησω] ελεγξω Ο (154) | epya]+ mala boh-cod. | rovnpas λογοις 
745180 (319) | ἡμα5] pr. εἰς C vg. : ὑμας A716 (61) 75 158 (395) 7° 63 (498) 75 558 
(56) | exc] om. H!®(61) | επιδεχεται] vrodexerar [°° 14 (307) : + wos neque 
acctfit sah” | βουλομενους NABKLP al. pler. cat. am. fu. cop. syrP™t 
aeth. Thphyl. Oec. ] ewsdexouevous C 5. 7. 27. 29. 66** vg. demid. tol. sah, 
syrbodlet pmg arm. :-+sesczpere DOh. | ex—exBadder] εκβαλλει και κωλύει της 
ἐκκλησιας 4 | ek ABCKL Pal. plu. Thphyl. Oec.]om. δὲ 2. 3. 15. 25. 26. 
36. 43. 95*- 98. 99. 100 bs hs, 


11. ἀγαπητέ] Cf. note on ver. 2. 

μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακόν] Cf. He. ΧΙ]. 7; 2 Th. iii. 7,9. The use of 
φαῦλον is more frequent in this writer, but κακόν is found in Jn. 
XVill. 23 (εἰ κακῶς ἐλάλησα μαρτύρησον περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ). It is not 
necessary to limit the writer’s meaning to the examples of evil 
and good afforded by Diotrephes and Demetrius, especially as 
the conduct of the latter would seem to have needed apology. 
If two special examples are intended, they must be the action of 
Diotrephes, and that of Gaius and his friends who wished to 
show hospitality. But the writer’s object is rather to set two 
courses of action in the sharpest possible contrast, and to help 
forward a right decision by showing the true character of the 
point at issue in all its simplicity. Viewed rightly, it is simply a 
matter of refusing the evil and choosing the good. There are 
times when the simplest platitude in the mouth of authority is 
the expression of the truest wisdom ; cf. Mk. iii. 4 (=Lk. vi. 9). 
ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν] Cf. τ Jn. ili. 9, 10. He who 
“does good” shows by his conduct that the inspiration which 
dominates his life and work comes from God. He who “ does 
evil” shows similarly that he has not made even the first step 
towards union with God; cf. 1 Jn. ill. 6, πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ 
ἑώρακεν αὐτόν (Dr. Westcott’s note); Jn. ili. 3, 5. 

For the use of ἀγαθοποιεῖν, κακοποεῖν, and cognate words, cf. 
1 τἰῖ τ. 11: τὴ: 50, ΜΠ Ὁ; τ᾿: ΤῊΣ 1, ΤΆ ΤΠ ἸΝ 1π: Several 
points of connection between 2 and 3 John and 1 Peter have 


192 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN [11, 19. 


been noticed by Dom Chapman in his articles on the historical 
setting of these Epistles. 


o2?>NABCKP h al. longe. plu. cat. ἃ vg. bob-codd. sah. syr?] 
+6e L 31 aS al. mu. tol. boh-ed. arm. aeth. Did. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. 


12. Δημητρίῳ] Nothing is known of Demetrius except what 
can be gathered from the Epistle itself. The conjecture that he 
should he identified with the Demas mentioned in the Pauline 
Epistles (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24, and 2 Ti. iv. 10), and the less 
improbable suggestion of his identity with the Ephesian silver- 
smith whose opposition to 5. Paul is recorded in Ac. xix. 21 ff, 
have been referred to in the Introduction. Purely conjectural 
identification is hardly a branch of serious historical study. But 
the mention of Demetrius here may be interpreted in different 
ways. (i.) It is possible to regard him as a member of the 
Church of Gaius and Diotrephes, whose conduct had somehow 
or other given cause for suspicion, even if we cannot follow the 
ingenious attempts of Weiss to show that he must have been the 
leader of the Church to whom under the special circumstances 
of the case the Elder had sent his letter to the Church (ver. 9), 
and of whose attitude Gaius was uncertain, as he stood between 
the two parties (Weiss, p. 210). 

(ii.) With greater probability he has been regarded as the 
bearer of the Epistle (3 Jn.). Wilamowitz and others are 
probably right in finding in this Epistle a commendatory letter 
on behalf of Demetrius and his companions. The special 
emphasis of ver. 12 is most easily explained, as Dom Chapman, 
Mr. Bartlet and others have seen, by the supposition that 
Demetrius had fallen under suspicion, though the grounds for 
such suspicion are altogether unknown. On the whole, the 
hypothesis which best suits the facts of the case which are 
known to us is that he was one of the Missionaries, perhaps their 
leader. The main object of the letter is to commend them to 
the hospitality of the Church of Gaius. This the Elder had 
already attempted to do in a letter written to the Church. But 
his object had been frustrated by the machinations of Diotrephes, 
who had succeeded in forcing his will upon the Church. 
Probably Diotrephes had found his task the easier because of 
suspicions felt about Demetrius, which were not altogether 
unwarranted. We cannot, however, say more than that of 
several possible hypotheses this is the most probable. 

ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας] Cf. Papias’ quotation of the words of 
the Elder (Eus. #. £. iii. 39. 3), ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς 
ἀληθείας. The tendency to personify the Truth is clearly marked 
in the Johannine writings. The relation of the Truth, as thus 
personified, to Christ and to the Spirit is not so clearly defined. 


12. | NOTES ON 3 JOHN 193 


In view of the language of the Farewell discourses in the Gospel 
(cf. especially Jn. xvi. 13), and the statement of 1 Jn. v. 6, ὅτι τὸ 
πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἣ ἀλήθεια, there is much to be said in favour of 
Huther’s view, that the expression αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια is not merely a 
personification of Truth, but a description of the Holy Spirit. 
Against this, however, must be set the language of Jn. xiv. 6, 
ἐγώ εἰμι. . . ἡ ἀλήθεια. With this want of clearness we natur- 
ally compare the difficulty which is so often found in the First 
Epistle of determining whether the writer is speaking of the 
Father or the Son. The writer does not think in the terms of 
modern conceptions of personality as applied to the Godhead, or 
of the more precise definitions which were the result of the 
Trinitarian controversies. His function is rather to provide the 
material out of which later thought developed clearer definition. 

In what manner the “Truth” is said to bear witness to 
Demetrius is a different question. Probably it is in so far as his 
life and conduct show those who know him that the ideal of 
Christianity has been realized in him, that he “abides in the 
truth.” 

ὑπὸ πάντων] If any qualification of the words is necessary, that 
of Oecumenius will serve the purpose, τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐχόντων. 
And his further suggestion is appropriate, εἴ τις τὸ ὑπὸ πάντων Kal 
ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπίστων ἐκλάβοι διὰ τὸ περιληπτικὸν τοῦ πᾶς μορίου, οὐ 
κακῶς οὗτος ὑπολαμβάνων φωραθείη, and also his comparison of 
5. Paul’s πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω. But the natural exaggeration of 
this use of πάντων, where the meaning practically is “all whom 
the matter may concern,” or “all who might be expected to do 
the thing spoken of,” is common in all language, and is best left 
to explain itself. 

kai ἡμεῖς δέ] For the construction, and also for the com- 
bination of the witness of men with the higher witness, cf. Jn. 
xv. 26f. ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ" καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε, ὅτι 
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ. The meaning of ἡμεῖς in these Epistles 
is often difficult to determine,—a difficulty which is unnecessarily 
exaggerated by the attempt to discover one meaning which it 
must have throughout. It is certainly unsatisfactory to find in 
it an expression for the αὐτόπται of the Province of Asia as often 
as Dr. Zahn suggests, a fact which his critics are never tired of 
emphasizing. But there are several passages in which the writer 
would certainly seem to mean by ἡμεῖς himself and all who can 
speak with authority as to the truth of Christianity and the 
teaching of Christ, and where he is, perhaps, thinking primarily 
of acompany, most of whose lives “ have passed into the unseen.” 
At any rate, he means something more than “1 and those who 
are like-minded with me.” It is not altogether fanciful to 
suppose that the words of Jn. xv. 26f. are in his mind as he 


13 


104 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN [12-14. 


writes. In the present verse, however, there is nothing to 
suggest that he means more than “we who are personally 
acquainted with Demetrius.” 

οἶδας κιτιλ.] The close connection of this clause with Jn. xxi. 
24, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἣ μαρτυρία ἐστίν, is obvious. 
There is very little to determine which should be regarded as the 
echo of the other. 

οἶδας] The plural of the Zextus Receptus is not well supported, 
and the personal appeal to Gaius is more natural. Possibly the 
correction is due to the influence of the plural in Jn. xxi. 24. 

The writer apparently makes his appeal to Gaius’ knowledge 
of himself, and the trustworthy character of his witness in 
general. It is possible, however, that he is thinking of Gaius’ 
knowledge of Demetrius, which would help him to judge of the 
truth of the Elder’s witness in this particular case. 


αὐτηΞς] om. boh. sah. | της αληθειας] pr. της εκκλησιας και C syrbodl et p mg 
arm. (om. aurys) : της exkAnovas A* | και οιδας 8 A BC al. plus” cat. ἃ 
vg. sah. boh-ed. arm.] καὶ οιδατε KL Ρ al. longe. plur. syr>odletP aeth. 
Thphyl. Oec. : καὶ ovdapev 14*. 38. 93. 104. 180 al.? scr boh-codd. : om. 
ascr: om. καὶ 75 (W) | η-εστιν] ἀληθὴς ἡμων εστιν (err. ἡμ. 68) ἡ μαρτυρια C 
68: αληθης εστιν ἡ wapT. nu. 31 aeth. 


13-15. The close of the Epistle. 

13. γράψαι... . γράφειν] This is probably the true text, though 
the variants γράφειν---γράψαι are found. The use of the tenses 
is correct. The ‘‘much” which he has to communicate is 
naturally regarded as a whole, the aorist being used. But he 
does not wish to go on using pen and ink (γράφειν). 

μέλανος] Cf. 2 Jn. 12. 

καλάμου] The reed, the pen of the ancients, here takes the 
place of the writing material mentioned in 2 Jn. Cf. Ps. xliv. 
(xlv.) 1, κάλαμος γραμμάτεως, Oxyrh. Pap. 11. 326 (p. 306) παρα- 
τέθεικα TH μητρὶ φιλουμένῃ τὸ Bpoxlov τοῦ μέλανος καὶ τοὺς καλάμους. 


εἰχον] ἡ θελον 70 157 (29): habens boh-ed (Ὁ) | γὙραψαι σοι δὲ A BC al.” 
ἃ vg. sah. cop. syrbodletp arm. (μοδῖς codd.) aeth. Thphyl.] γραφειν 
K LP al. pler. cat. Oec. : συγγραψαι 7° 5° (—) | ov θελω] οὐκ εβουληθην 
A: οὐκ nOedov 27: noluz vg. | δια---καλαμου] per chartam et atramentum 


arm. | σοι γραφειν δὰ BC 5. 27. 31. 33. 105] ypadew σοι A 73: σοι ypayar 
KL Pal. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec. : om. σοι 4. 16 arm. 


14. ἐλπίζω... ἰδεῖν] Ch 2 Jn. 12, ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 
The εὐθέως may possibly suggest that the intended journey is 
nearer than when 2 John was written. The action of Diotrephes, 
and perhaps of others in other places, may have brought matters 
to a crisis. 

στόμα πρὸς στόμα] Cf. 2 Jn. 12 (notes). 

εἰρήνη σοι] The Christian wish (cf. Jn. xiv. 27) takes the 


14, 15.] NOTES ON 3 JOHN 195 


place of the usual éppwoo, or ἐρρῶσθαί σε εὔχομαι of ordinary 
correspondence. 

ἀσπάζονται] In the private letter the private greetings are 
given instead of the general greeting of the members of the 
Church in the more formal Epistle (2 Jn. 13). 


σε ιδεν ABC 5. 31. 73. d vg.] wWev σε S KLP al. pler. cat. cop. 
Thphyl. Oec.: wentrve ad te sah. | λαλησομεν] λαλήσωμεν K 22. 26. 33. 
41. 99 Thphyl. : λαλησαι 7710-162 (25) 78 10. 200 (S05) : dogud ἐξόξ arm. 


15. ἀσπάζου τοὺς φίλους κατ᾽ ὄνομα] These forms of greeting 
are part of the common stock of epistolary correspondence, and 
should not be pressed as evidence about the state of parties 
in the Church of Gaius. It is especially misleading to inter- 
pret κατ᾽ ὄνομα as a proof of the scanty following left to the 
Elder in it. Compare the greetings in the letter of Amon the 
soldier to his father (Berlin Museum: Deissmann, Licht von 
Osten, p. 118), ἄσπασαι Καπίτωνα πολλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφούς pov καὶ 
Σερήνιλλαν καὶ τοὺς φίλους μου : and Oxyrh. Pap. il. 123, ἀσπάζομαι 
τὴν γλυκυτάτην μου θυγατέρα Μακκαρίαν, καὶ τὴν δεσποίνην μου 
μητέραν ὑμῶν καὶ ὅλους τοὺς ἡμῶν κατ᾽ ὄνομα : or Tebtunis Pap. ii. 
299 (p. 422), ἀσπάζομαι τὴν γυναῖκάν μου καὶ τὰ παιδία μου καὶ 

εραπάμμωνα καὶ ᾿Αματίαν καὶ τοὺς ἐνοίκους πάντας κατ᾽ ὄνομα. 


ειρηνη σοι] οτη. 75 170 (303) | co] κ“οὐὖὲς arm-codd. | o φιλοι NBCKLP 
al. pler. ἃ vg. sah. cop. syr°d! syrP txt arm. Thphyl. Oec.] οἱ ἀδελῴοι A 3. 
13. 31. 33. 65. 67 ds syrP™ Δ6ί ἢ υἱγ | acmafov] ασπασαι & 40 | Tous 
φιλους] Tous αδελῴους 33. 81. 160 boh-cod. syr?:+cov 44 ὅθ: 162 (Ψ): + 
nostros ALM. | κατ ovowal+apunv L 15. 26 vg. mss, arm, 


Ν ila 





ΗΝ 


APPENDIX. 


THE OLD LATIN VERSION. 


In the following pages an attempt has been made to show to 
what extent the Old Latin Version, or Versions, of these Epistles 
is known or can be recovered. With the exception of the first 
eight verses of 1 Jn. i., the whole of the First Epistle is contained 
in MSS which are predominantly Old Latin in character. The 
Fleury Palimpsest, edited by M. Berger in 1889, and more 
recently by Mr. Buchanan in Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. 5, 
contains 1 Jn. i. 8-iii. 20; the Freisingen Fragments, edited by 
Ziegler in 1876, contain 1 Jn. iii. 8 (apparuit filius) to the end 
of the Epistle. The Zvractates of Augustine give us a complete 
text as far as 1 Jn. v. 2. For the first eight verses Augustine’s 
text has been given till the Fleury Palimpsest begins (i. 8 -rimus 
quoniam). This is followed till 111. 8 in hoc, after which Ziegler’s 
Freisingen Fragment is used. In the case of the Fleury 
Palimpsest, M. Berger’s text has been used. Where Mr. 
Buchanan differs from M. Berger the readings of the former 
are added iztra lineas.1 This text is followed by an apparatus 
criticus in which the attempt is made to give the variants from 
this text which are found in the Vulgate (Vg.), in the text con- 
tained in Augustine’s Zvractates on the Epistles (Aug., quotations 
from other works of Augustine, which are only cited when they 
differ from the Zvactates, are quoted as Aug.), and in the 
quotations from Latin writers whose works have been published 
in the Vienna Corgus. No quotations have been included from 
works not available in that edition, except in the case of 
Tertullian where Oehler has been used for treatises not yet 
published in the new edition, and Irenaeus (Stieren). The 
readings of the Perpignan MS, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 321, which 
τ 1 This refers to words and letters which both editors treat as legible, 


wholly or in part. 
197 


198 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


differ from the Old Latin text printed here and which are not 
Vulgate readings, have been added (under the symbol “p”) in 
the Critical Notes from the text of the Catholic Epistles, 
published by the Rev. E. S. Buchanan in the Journal of 
Theological Studies, xii. 48 (July 1911). The agreements of 
this MS in the First Epistle of S. John with Augustine and with 
the Speculum are of considerable interest. The form in which 
it gives the text of 1 Jn. v. 7, 8 is very close to that of one of the 
quotations in the Speculum. 

The use of an approximately Old Latin text as a basis, which 
ensures the presentation of variants which have a claim to be 
regarded as Old Latin, as the Vulgate readings are always given 
where they differ from the text printed, reduces the bulk in the 
case of those writers whose text is largely Old Latin in character. 
The amount of Patristic support for Old Latin readings would, 
of course, have been shown more clearly by the use of a Vulgate 
text as a basis. A table of Greek words and their renderings 
has been added which may serve to call attention to the more 
interesting renderings. The work is tentative in character and 
has not led to any very definite results. 

It may, however, be noticed that the twelve verses of ch. iii., 
where we have the guidance of both MSS, show that the 
Freisingen text is closer to that of Augustine than is the Fleury 
MS, though the verses offer very little evidence that is decisive. 
The differences between h and Cyprian are noticeable, but they 
do not invalidate von Soden’s judgment as to the African 
character of the text of the Fleury Palimpsest (von Soden, p. 
241f.). And the general agreement between Augustine and the 
Freisingen Fragment can be clearly seen, though their texts are 
by no means identical. The independence of the version used 
by Lucifer of Cagliari is also very clearly marked. The 
evidence adduced also confirms the view that the tendency to 
add interpretative and explanatory glosses to the text of the 
Epistle is both widespread and dates back to early times. In 
view of the importance of the gloss which found its way into so 
many texts of 1 Jn. v. 7 ἢ, this fact is not without interest. The 
growth of that gloss can be traced back at least as early as 
Cyprian. The following instances of this tendency should be 
noticed : 

ii. 5. +si in ipso perfecti fuerimus, Aug. 

9. odit]+homicida est et, Cyp. 

16. ex concupiscentia saeculi, Cyp. 

17. +quomodo et ipse (Deus) manet in aeternum, Cyp. Aug. 

Luc. 
23. nec filium nec patrem, Aug. 
et filium et patrem, Cyp. Prisc. Spec. (Luc.). 


APPENDIX 199 


iii. 1. propter hoc mundus non cognoscit nos quia non cognoscit 
eum et nos non cognoscit mundus, Aug. 
7. (2?)+sicut et ille iustus est. 
Io. patrem suum] patrem suum aut matrem suam, Cyp. cod. 
iv. 3. Sed est de antichristi spiritu, Cyp. 
omnis qui soluit Iesum Christum et negat eum in carne 
uenisse, Aug. 1{- 
cf. Tert. adv. Macc. v. 16, negantes Christum in carne 
uenisse et soluentes Iesum, scilicet in deo creatore. 
vy. 1. deus in ipso est et ipse in deo, Spec. 
20. +et carnem induit nostri causa et passus est et resurrexit 
a mortuis adsumpsit nos, Spec. 
aeterna]+ et resurrectio nostra, Spec. 


bel Ν-ῚῸῸ 
AUGUSTINE, Comm. in Ep. Joann. 


τ. Quod erat ab initio, quod audiuimus, et quod uidimus 
oculis nostris, et manus nostrae tractauerunt de uerbo uitae. 

2. Et ipsa uita manifestata est, et uidimus et testes sumus, et 
annuntiamus nobis uitam aeternam, quae erat apud Patrem, et 
manifestata est in nobis. 

4. Quae uidimus et audiuimus nuntiamus uobis, ut et uos 
societatem habeatis nobiscum, et societas nostra sit cum Deo 
Patre, et Iesu Christo, filio eius. 

4. Et haec scribimus uobis, ut gaudium uestrum sit plenum. 

5. Et haec est annuntiatio quam audiuimus ab eo, et 
-annuntiamus uobis, quia Deus lux est et tenebrae in illo non 
sunt ullae. 

6. Quodsi dixerimus quia societatem habemus cum 60, et in 
tenebris ambulamus, mentimur, et non facimus ueritatem. 

7. Quodsi in lumine ambulamus, sicut et ipse est in lumine, 
societatem habemus cum inuicem, et sanguis Iesu Christi, filii 
eius, purgabit nos ab omni delicto. 


FLEURY PavimpsEsT, ed. Berger, Paris, 1889.1 


1 Jn. i. 8. [si dixe] Rimus quoniam peccatum n habemus 
Ipsos nos deczfzmus* et ueritas in nobis non est 

9. Si confiteamur peccata nos¢va fidelis et iustus ut remittam 
nobis peccata et purget nos ex omni iniquitate 


1 Ttalics are used where the MS is illegible. M. Berger’s text is followed 
where the two editions ‘‘supply” different words. Where the ‘‘ supplies” 
agree, italics are used only for what is regarded as illegible by doth editors. 

2 eseductmus Buch. 


200 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


το. quod si dixerimus quod non peccawmus mendacem 
ae eum et uerbum eius non est ζη nobis 
li. 1. fili mei haec iscribo uobis ne peccetis et si quis 


ions aduocatum abemus aput patrem ihu xpm iustum 

2. et ipse est exoratio pro peccatis nostris non pro nostris 
autem tantum sed et pro totius saeculi 

3. et in hoc iscimus quvoniam cognouimus eum si mandata 
eius seruemus 

4. qui dict se noscere eum et mandata ezus non seruat men- 
dax est in hoc weritas non est 


5. nam qui custodit uerbum ws in hoc caritas di ferfecta est 
in hoc isceimus quoniam in eo sumus 

6. qui dict se in ipso manere debet quemadmodum ille 
ambulauit et 2256 ambulare 

7. Carissimi non nowum mandatum scribo uobis sed mandatum 

od 
uetus quem habuistis ab initio mandatwm uetus est uerbum 
quod audistis 
erit um 
8. iterum mandazwm nouum iscribo uobis quod est uere ! in ipso 
nobis 

et in uobis quia ¢fenebrae iam transeunt et lumen uerum iam luce? 

9. gui dicit se in lumine esse et fratrem suum hodit in 
tenebris est usg. adhuc 

Io. nam qui diligit fratrem suum in lumine permane?¢ et 
scandalum in eo non est 

II. qui autem hodit fratrem suw zm fenebris est et in 
tenebris ambulat et non scit ubi eat guia te | nebrae obscoe- 
cauerunt oculos eius 

fili mez guza iam 

12. scribo uobis filio/? guontam remittuntur uobis peccata 
propter nomen eius 

13. scribo uobis patres quoniam cognouistis quod erat ab 
izitio scribo uobis iuuenes quoniam uicistis malignum 

ula 

14. Scribo uobis pueri quoniam cognouistis patrem ae 
cognouistis eum qui est ab initio scribo uobis adulescentes 
guoniam fortes estis et uerbum di in uobis permanet et wicistis 
malignum 

15. nolite diligere seculum nec ea quae sunt zz saeculo si quis 
diligit saeculum non est caritas patris in eo 

16. guoniam omne quod est in seculo concupiscentia carnis 

saeculi 

est οὐ concupiscentia oculorum et superbia wz¢ae est quae non est 
de 
ex patre sed de seculo est 


te 
lue (sic) Buch. 


APPENDIX 201 


transiet 
17. et saeculum transit et comcupiscentia qui autem facit 
bz¢ 
uoluntatem di permanet 77 aefernum 
18. Pueri nouissima hora est et sicut aud7s/is guoniam 
Cx Cras 
antixps uenit nunc antixpi multi facti sunt ude cognoscimus 
quoniam nouissima hora est 
produzt 
19. Ex nobis exzerunt sed non erat ex nobis nam si fuisset 
et 


ex nobis permansissent forsitan nobiscum sed ut praesto fiat 
quoniam ox sunt omnes ex nobis 


20. et uos unctionem accepistis a sto et nostis omnia 


21. non scripsi uobis quasi ignorantib ueritate sed scentibus 
eam et quoniam omnem mendacium ex ueri/aze non est 

22. quis est mendax nisi is qui negat quia is est xps hic est 

ey! non 
antixps qui negat patrem et filium 

23. omnis qui περαΐ fillum! | Nec patrem habet qui confitetur 
filium et patrem habet 

24. uos quod audistis ab initio permaneat in ποόἧς guod si in 
uobis permanserit quod ab initio audistis e¢ wos in filio et patre 
permanebitis 

uobis 

25. et haec est promissio guam ipse pollicitus est zobis uitam 

aeternam. 
ese 

26. Haec scripsz wobis de eis qui seducunt uos. 

27. et uos untionem quam accepistis ab eo permaneat in 
uobis et necesse non habed7s μΖ aliguis doceat uos sed sicut untio 
eius docet uos de omvzb e¢ uerum est et non est mendum? et 

maneézée 
sicut docuit uos permanete in 60 
1 

28. et nunc filio manete in eo ut cum uenerit fiduccam 
Aabeamus et non confundamur ab eo In praesentia eius 

si nostis eum qui fidelis est 

29. St scimus quoniam tustus est scitote quoniam ommis gui 

ueritatem de eo natus 
Jacit institiam ex 1250 natus est 
ili. 1. ecce qualem caritates dedit uobis pater ut filii dei 
egnorat 
uocaremur et sumus propterea seculum nos inhonorat 


et habet 
1 negat filium] n filium (sic) Buch, 


acl 
3 mendum (sic) Buch. 


202 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


2. Carissimi nunc filii di sumus et nondum manifestatum 
est qui futuri sumus scimus quoniam cum affaruerit similes 
erimus ei quoniam uidebimus eum siczéz est 

3. ef omnis qui habet spem hanc in eo castificat se sicut e¢ 
tlle castus est 

4. omnis qui facit peccatum et iniquitatem facét et peccatum 
est iniquitas 

5. et scitis quoniam ille apparuit ut peccata folleret et 
peccatum in illo non est 

6. omnis qui in eo permawet non peccat omnis qui peccat non 
uidit eum nec cognouit em 

7. filioli nemo nos seducat qui facit iustitiam iustus est 

omnis qui fa 

8. gui autem fa | cit peccatum de diabolo est quia ab initio 

diabolus Zeccat im hoc.} 


1 ΠΝ ΙΝ 


FREISINGEN FRAGMENT. 


8. apparuit filius di ut soluat opera diaboli 

g. Omnis qui natus est ex Do peccatum non facit quia 
semen eius in ipso manet et non potest peccare quoniam de Do 
natus est 

το. Ex hoc manifesti sunt filé? di et filii diaboli omnis qui 
non facit iustitiam non est de do et qui non diligit fratrem 
suum 

11. Quoniam hoc est mandatum quod audistis ab initio ut 
diligamus imuice 

12. Non sicut cain qui ex maligno erat et occidit fratrem 
suum et culus rei gratia occidit eum quia opera eius maligna 
erant fratris autem eius iusta 

13. et nolite mirari fratres si odit nos hic mundus 

14. Nos scimus quoniam transimus de morte ad uitam quia 
diligimus fratres qui non diligit permanet in mortem 

15. Omnis qui odit fratrem suum homicida est et scitis quia 
omnis homicida non habet uitam aeternam in se manentem 

16. in hoc cognoscimus caritatem quia ille pro nobis animam 
suam posuit et nos debemus pro fratribus animas ponere. 

17. qui autem habuerit substantiam huius mundi et uiderit 


1The MS continues as far as ver. 20 (ds corde nostro et), so that for 
vv. 8-20 we have both the Fleury and the Freisingen text. The variations 
of the Fleury Palimpsest are henceforward noted, the text being taken from 
the Freisingen Fragment. 


APPENDIX 203 


fratrem suum egere et clauserit uiscera sua ab eo quomodo 


caritas di manet in eo 
18. filioli non diligamus tantum uerbo neque lingua sed 
operae et ueritate 


19. et in hoc cognoscimur qm ex ueritate sumus et coram 
ipso suademus cordi nostro 


20. qm si reprehendat nos cor nostrum maior est ds cordi 
nostro et nouit omnia 


21. kmi si cor nm non nos reprehendat fiduciam habemus 
aput dm 

22. et quidquid petierimus accipiemus ab eo qm mandata 
eius seruamus et quae sunt placita in conspectu eius faciszus 

23. et hoc est mandatum eius ut credamus nomén/ filiz eius 


IHU XPI et diligamus inuicem sicut dedit noézs mandatum 
24. et qui seruat mandatum eius in illo manebit et ipse in eo 


et in hoc scimus qm permanet in nobis de spu quem dedit nobis 
iv. I. Kmi nolite omni spu credere sed probate sps si ex do 
sunt qm multi pseudoprophetae prodierunt 1 in hoc saeculo 
2. hinc cognoscitur 505. di omnis sps qui confitetur THM 
XPM in carne uenisse ex do est. 


3. et omnis sps qui non confitetur THM ex do non est et 
hoc est illius antixpisti quem audistis quia uenturus est et nunc 
in saeculo est 


4. iam uos ex do estis filioli et uicistis eos qm maior est qui 
in uobis est quam hic qui in saeculo est 

5. hii de saeculo sunt propterea de saeculo locuntur et 
saeculum audit eos 

6. nos ex do sumus qui cognoscit dm audit nos qui non est 
ex do non nos audit hinc cognoscimus spm ueritatis et spm 
erroris 

7. kmi diligamus inuicem qm caritas ex do est et omnis qui 
diligit fratrem suum ex do natus est et cognoscit dm 

8. qui non diligit ignorat dm quia ds caritas est 

g. in hoc apparuit caritas di in nobis qm filium suum unicum 
misit ds in saeculo ut uiuamus per eum 

το. in hoc est caritas non quod nos dilexerimus dm sed qm 
ipse dilexit nos et misit filium suum propitiatorem pro peccatis 
nostrils. 


11. kmi si sic ds dilexit nos et nos debemus diligere 
imuicem 

12. dm zemo uidit umquam quodsi diligamus imuicem ds in 
nobis manet et caritas eius perfecta est in nobis 


204. THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 

13. in hoc cognoscimus qum in ipso manemus et ipse in 
nob/s qm de spu suo dedit nobis 

14. et nos uidimus ef testamur qm pater misit filium suum 
salwatorem saeculi ΑΝ 

15. quicumque confessus fuerit gm zhs est filius di ds in eo 
manet et ipse in do 

16. Et nos cognouimus et credidimus in cavi¢ate quam habet 
ds in nobis ds caritas est e¢ gui manet in caritate in do permanet 
et ds iz eo manet 

17. in hoc} ‘perfecta: jest “Karitas” im) ΠΟ feduciam 


habemus in diem iudicii quia s¢écut lle est et nos sumus in hoc 
mundo 

18. _timor now est in caritate sed perfecta caritas foras m7¢¢it 
timore qm timor poenam hadet qui autem témet non est perfectus 
in caritatem 

19. "05 ergo diligamus qm ipse prior dilexit nos 

20. si quis dixevit diligo dm et fratrem suum odit mendax 
est gu? enim non diligit fratrem suum quem uidet dm guem non 
uidet quomodo potest diligere 

21. et hoc mandatum habemus a do ut qui diligit dm di//gat 
et fratrem suum 

v. I. omnis qui credit quia IHs es¢ xps ex do natus est et 
omnis qui diligit genitorem didig?t eum qui genitus est ex e0 


2. hinc cogvoscimus gm diligimus filios di: cum diligimus dm 
et mandata eius facimus 

3. haec est enim cavitas wt mandata eius seruemus et 
manda/¢a evus grauia non sunt 

4. quia omne quod natum est ex do wincit saeculum et haec 
est uictoria quae uincit sacew/um fides nostra 
5. quis est autem qui uincit saeculwm mist gui credit quia 
THS est filius di 

6. hic est gui uenit per aguam et sanguinem IHS XPS et 
non tazfum in agua sed in aqua et sanguine et sps est ‘estt- 
monium quia sps est ueritas 

7. qm tres sunt qui testificantur in terra * sps et aqua et 
sanguts et tres sunt gui ¢estificantur in caelo pater e¢ uerbum et 
sps scs et hi tres unum sunt 

9. Si testimonium hominum accipimus testimonium di maius 
est guia hoc est testimonium di quia testéficatus est de filio suo 

10. gui credit in filio di habet testimonium di in se gui non 
credit in do mendacem facit eum quia zon credit in testimonium 
eius quod testificatus est ds de filio suo 


APPENDIX 205 


τι. et hoc est testimonium qm uitam aeternam dedit nobis 
ds et haec uita in filio eius est 

12. qui habet filium di uitam habet gui non habet filium di 
uitam non habet 

13. haec serio uobis ut sciatis quia uitam habetis aeterzam 
qui creditis in ne fili di 

14. et haec est fiducia guam habemus ad eum quia quiaquid 
petierimus secundum uoluntatem eius audit nos 

15. et si scimus guza audit nos quidquid petierimus scimus 
qm habemus petitiones quas petiuimus ab eo 

16. si quis scit fratrem suum peccare peccatum no ad mortem 
postulabit et dabit ei uitam his qui feccat non usque ad mortem 
est enim peccatwm usgue ad mortem non pro illo dico ut pos¢udet 

17. omnis iniustitia peccatun est et est peccalum ad mortem 

18. scimus qm omnis qui xa/us est ex do non peccat sed 
natiuitas di consevuat eum et malignus non tangit eum 

19. scim’ gm ex do sumus et totus mundus in maligno fositus 
est 

20. ef scimus qm filius di uenit et dedit nobis intellectum ut 
sciamus quod est ueru e¢ simus in uero filio eius IHU XPO hic 
est uerus ds ef vita aeterna 

21. filioli custodite uos ab idolis. 

Moet ec LN INCRELUSDEM “If. 


In the following critical notes differences of order have not, 
as a rule, been noted except for the Vulgate, and the text found 
in Augustine’s Zvractates on the Epistle. An attempt has been 
made to indicate by fractions the proportion which the evidence 
for any particular variant in any writer bears to the whole 
evidence on the point in question to be found in his quotations 
of the passage. This has not been attempted in the case of 
Augustine, except for the TZvactates (Aug.), where different 
readings have been noted in this way, when, as sometimes 
happens, more than one rendering is found in the text. 











i, I, erat] fuit Vg. Cass. | quod 2°—uitae] quod uidimus quod audiuimus 
oculis nostris uidimus et manus nostrae contrectauerunt de sermone uitae 
Tert. ?/. | quod 2°—nostris] quae uidimus oculis nostris et auribus audiuimus 
Mur. Fr. | et 1°] om. Vg. Cass. | quod 3°] om. Amb. 1/3 | oculis nostris] 27. 
quod Amb-codd. 7/3: gr. et Amb-codd. 1/3: om. Amb-cod. 1/3: +quod 
perspeximus Vg. Cass. :+perspeximus Amb. ~/s-ed. #/, | et 2°]+quod Amb- 
codd. }/, | tractauerunt] contrectauerunt Vg.: palpauerunt Mur. Fr. Cass. : 
perscrutatae sunt Amb. 1795 : scrutatae sunt Amb. 2 2) 

2. ipsa] om. Vg. Amb. */, | manifestata est 1°] apparuit Amb. ?/, | testes 
sumus] testamur Vg. Cass. Amb. */,: testificamur p. | uitam aeternam] de 
ulta Amb. | manifestata est 2°] apparuit Vg. Cass. Amb-ed.: paruit Amb- 
cod. | in] om. Vg. Cass. Spec. 


206 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


3. quae] quod ergo p. | annunciamus Vg. | et 3°—eius] ut communio sit 
nobis cum patre et filio eius Iesu Christo Tert. | sit] est p. | cum deo patre] 
apud patrem Spec. | Iesu—eius] cum filio eius Iesu Christo Vg. Spec. 

4. scribimus] scripsimus Mur. Fr. (uid.) | uobis] pr. ut gaudeatis p.— 
gaudium] pr. gaudeatis et Vg. | uestrum] nostrum p. 

quia societatem habemus] nos societatem habere p. | quia] quoniam 
Vg. | illo] eo Vg. Aug. Vict. Vit. 

6. quodsi] si Vg. | quia] quoniam Vg. | societatem] communionem Tert. 

| ambulamus] incedamus Tert. | ueritatem non facimus Vg. 

7. quod si] si autem Vg. : si uero Tert. | lumine 1°, 2°] luce Vg. | ambu- 
lamus] incedamus Tert. | sicut—lumine 2°] om. Tert. | societatem] com- 
munionem Tert. | cum inuicem] ad inuicem Vg. : cum eo Tert. : cum deo p. 

| filii eius] domini nostri Tert. | purgabit] emundat Vg. Tert.: mundat p. | 
delicto] peccato Vg. 

8. dixerimus] dicamus Tert. | quoniam—habemus] nos delictum (pec- 
catum Gel.) non habere Tert. Gel-Ep. 1/3; | quoniam] quod Aug-codd. : quia 
p. Cyp. ?/s-ed. 4/3 Aug. Cass. ?/3-ed. 1/3 Gel-Ep. 7/2 Opt. 1/o-codd. 4/,-Luc. 
Spec. | peccata Faust | ipsos nos decipimus] ipsi nos seducimus Vg. Aug. 
Paul-Oros. Cass. ?/;-codd. 1/,: nos ipsos seducimus Aug. Gel-Ep. 1/3 Spec. : 
nos ipsos decipimus Cyp. #/; (decepimus cod. 53) : seducimus nosmet ipsos 
Tert. Aug. Gel-Ep. 1/3: ipsi nos decipimus Cass-ed. 1/3 Faust. | et] quia Gel- 
Ep. 1/3 | ueritas] uerbum eius Cass. 1/3 (cf. ver. 10). 

9. 51] quod si Aug. Gel-Ep.:+autem p. Cyp. | confiteamur] con- 
fitemur Tert.: confessi fuerimus Aug. Cyp. Gel-Ep. | peccata 1°] delicta 
Tert. Aug. Gel-Ep. | fidelis]+est Vg. Aug. Gel-Ep. | iustus]:-+est dominus 
Cyp. +est Spec. | ut—peccata 2°] qui nobis peccata dimittat Cyp. | ut] qui 
Spec. Gel-Ep. | remittam] remittat Vg. : dimittat Tert. Aug. Spec. Gel-Ep. 

| nobis peccata] ea nobis Tert. | peccata 2°] delicta nostra Aug. :+nostra 
Vg. Aug. | purget] emundet Tert. Vg.: mundet Aug. 1/, Spec. Gel-Ep. | 
ex] ab Tert. Aug. 1/, Vg. Spec. Gel-Ep. | iniquitate] iniustitia Tert. 

10. quod si] si Tert. Vg. Gel-Ep. 1/, Cass. | dixerimus] dicamus Tert. | 
quod non peccauimus] nos non deliquisse Tert. | quod] quoniam Aug. Vg. : 
quia Aug. Gel-Ep. ὅ,α Cass-ed. | facimus Tert. Aug. Vg. Cass. | eum] 
illum Tert. : deum Cass-cod. | uerbum] sermo Tert. | est] erit Gel-Ep. 375. 

ii. 1. fili mei] filioli mei Cyp. Aug. Vg.: filioli Tert. Aug.: fratres 
Aug. | haec] ista Cyp. (ita-cod.) | scribo] scripsi Tert. Cyp-cod. | ne] ut non 
Aug. Vg. Gel-Ep. 2,» Vict. Vit. | peccatis] delinquatis Tert. Cyp. | et] pr. 
sed Vg. Vict.Vit-cod.: sed Gel-Ep. ?/, Vict.Vit-ed. | quis peccauerit] 
deliqueritis Tert. : qui deliquerit Cyp. (quis codd.) | aduocatum] paracletum 
Vict. Vit. Faust. | apud] ad Aug. | patrem] pr. deum Tert. ad-Vigil (dnm 
cod.) | Iesum Christum) om. Gel-Ep. ?/,: om. Iesum ad-Vig. (uid.): om. 
Christum Aug. | iustum] suffragatorem Cyp-cod. 1/,: om. Vict. Vit. Faust. 

2. et] om. Cyp-cod. Aug. | exoratio] propitiatio Vg. Faust. Paul-Nol. 
Hier. : propitiator Aug. : satisfactio et placatio ad-Vig. (uid.): placatio Tert. 
Hil.: deprecatio Cyp. | pro 1°—tantum] peccatorum nostrorum non tantum 
nostrorum Aug. | peccatis] delictis Tert. Cyp. }/, | non—tantum] om. Faust. 

| et 2°) etiam Vg. | pro 3°] om. Aug. | saeculo] mundi Aug. Vg. Faust. 

3. in] ex Luc. | iscimus] intellegimus Cyp. Luc. : cognoscimus Aug. | 
quoniam cognoscimus] om. Aug. | quoniam] quia Cyp. | mandata] praecepta 
Cyp. | seruemus] seruauerimus Aug. : custodiamus Cyp. : obseruemus Vg. 

4. qui]+autem Luc. | se noscere] se nosse Vg.: quia cognouit Aug. 
Cyp-codd. quia cognoui Aug: qui cognouit Aug.: quia nouit Ambr. : 
quoniam cognouit Cyp. (nouit cod.) : quoniam cognoui Cyp-cod. Luc. ?/, | eum] 
dm p. | mandata] praecepta Ambr. | seruat] custodit Vg. Luc. ?/, | in hoc 
ueritas] et ueritas in illo Cyp. | in hoc] et in eo Luc. ?/, | ueritas—(5) hoc 1°] 
om, p*. 

τ᾿ nam qui custodit] qui autem custodit Vg. : qui autem seruauerit Aug. 


APPENDIX 207 


Luc, ?/, | in hoc 1°] pr. uere Vg. Aug. : uere ab eis Luc. 1/.: uere. . . apud 
illos Luc. 1/, | caritas] dilectio Aug. | perfecta] consummata Luc. 3). | in 2°] 
pr. et. Vg. | iscimus] cognoscimus Aug. | quoniam] quia Aug. | eo] ipso Vg. 
Aug. | sumus]+si in ipso perfecti fuerimus p. Aug. 

6. in ipso] in Christo Cyp. 4/4 (ov. in cod. 1/4) Hier. | quemadmodum] 
sicut Vg. Aug. Paul-Nol. : quomodo Cyp. 4/, Hier. ?/, | et] pr. sic Salv. 

7. carissimi] dilectissimi Aug. | mandatum nouum Vg. Aug. | quem] 
quod h* Vg. Aug. | habebatis Aug. 

8. est uere] erit uerum h*: uerum est Vg. Aug. | quia] qm p. | iam] 
om. Vg. Aug. | transierunt Vg. Aug. | lumen uerum] uerum lumen V¢. : 
lux uera Aug. 

9. esse in lumine Aug. 1/, | lumine] luce Vg. Aug. 1/, Cyp. 32,5 : lucem 
Cyp-cod. +/, Spec-cod. | odit]+homicida est et Cyp-cod. ?/, | est] ambulat 
Cyp-cod. 1/9. 

10. nam qui] qui autem Spec. Luc. : om. nam Vg. Aug. | diligit] amat 
Luc. | permanet] manet Vg. Aug. Spec. Euch. 

II. qui autem] nam qui Aug. | est-tenebris 2°] om. Luc. ?/, | non scit] 
nescit Vg. Cyp-cod. Aug. Faust. Luc. | ubi eat] quo eat Vg. Aug. Cyp. 
Luc. : quo uadit Faust. | quia] quoniam- Aug. Cyp. | obscoecauerunt] 
excaecauerunt Aug. Cyp.: obscurauerunt Luc. | oculos] cor Luc. 

12. scribo] dico Prisc. | quoniam] quia Aug. Prisc. | propter] per Aug. 

13. scribo 1°—initio] om. p. | quoniam 1°] quia Aug. Faust. | quod—initio] 
eum qui ab initio est Vg. Faust. : eum quia principio est Aug. | iuuenes] 
adolescentes Vg. | quoniam 2°] quia Aug. Faust. 

14. pueri] infantes Vg. | quoniam 1°] quia Aug. | quod—initio]om. Vg. | 
quod] scribo nobis patres quia p. Aug. | est ab initio]a principio est Aug. | 
adulescentes] iuuenes Vg. Aug. Euch. | quoniam 2°] quia p. Aug. Euch. 

| in uobis permanet] manet in uobis Vg. | permanet] manet Aug. Euch. 

15. Nolite diligere mundum neque ambitum eius Claud. | Nolite quaerere 
quae in hoc mundo sunt Paul-Nol. | nolite] pr. filioli Cass. | seculum 1°] 
mundum Vg. Aug. Cyp. 3/, De duod-abus. Faust. ?/, Cass. | saeculo] mundo 
Vg. Aug. Cyp. */3-ed. 1/; Ded. a. Faust. /2 Cass. : hoc mundo Cyp-cod. 1). 

| si quis] quisquis Aug-ed. : qui enim Faust. :+ autem p.:+enim Aug-cod. | 
quis] qui Cyp. 1/5-ed. ?/, | diligit] dilexerit Aug. Cyp..3/,| saeculum 2°] 
mundum Vg. Cyp. /3-ed. 1,5 Aug. Faust. Cass. : hunc mundum Cyp-cod. 1/3 
| non—eo] dilectio patris non est in ipso Aug, (eo Aug-cod.) | caritas] 
dilectio Aug. | patris] Dei Cass. | eo] illo Aug. Cyp. 3/3 Cass. 

16. quoniam] quia Aug. Cyp. ἡ, Faust. Cass. | omne—seculo] omnia 
quae in mundo sunt Aug. | est in saeculo] est in mundo Vg. Aug. Cass. Gel- 
Ep. Faust. : in mundo est Aug. Cyp. 4/4, | concupiscentia carnis est] desiderium 
est carnis Aug. | concupiscentia 1°] pr. aut Aug-cod. | est 2°] om. Faust. | 
concupiscentia 2°] uoluntas Prisc. ?/, | superbia uitae] ambitio saeculi Aug. 
Cyp. ?/y-ed. ἡ, Gel-Ep. : ambitio mundi Cyp-codd. 1/,: ambitio humanae 
uitae Prisc. :+ humanae Faust. | est 3°] om. Vg. Aug. Cyp-cod. ἡ, Faust. 
Prisc. Cass, : sunt Cyp-ed. 1/, | quae] et ubique Aug-cod. : om. Prisc. | est 
4°] sunt Aug. Prisc. | ex] a Aug. Cyp. 4/, Gel-Ep.: de Aug-codd. Faust. 
Prisc. | de saeculo] ex mundo Vg. Aug. Cyp-cod. ἡ, Gel-Ep. Cass. : de 
hoc mundo Prisc.: ex concupiscentia saeculi Cyp. 1/4-ed. 1/y-cod. 1, (a 
pro ex cod. 1/4): ex concupiscentia mundi Cyp. !/,-cod. 1/, | est 5°] sunt 
Aug. Prisc. : om. Cyp. 3/,-ed. 1/, cf. v. Sod. 225. 

17. saeculum] mundus Vg. Aug. Cyp. 4/, Gel-Ep. Cass. Faust. Prisc. 
Luce. | transit] transibit Cyp. %/,-ed. 1/, Aug. : praeterit Prisc.: perit Cass. 
(-iit codd.) | concupiscentia)+eius Vg. Cyp. 4/, Aug. Faust. Prisc. Luc. : 
desideria eius Aug. | facit] fecerit Aug. Cyp. °/; Gel-Ep. Faust. Luc. | dei] 
domini Gel-Ep. | permanet] manet Vg. Aug. Cyp. ?/;-ed. 1/;-cod. 1/, Gel- 
Ep. Cass. Faust. Luc.: manebit Cyp. 1/;-ed. 1/;-cod. 1/, | aeternum]+ 
quomodo et ipse manet in aeternum p. Aug. (sicut) Cyp. */; (om. cod. 3.) 


208 THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN 


Luc. [[quomodo et ipse] sicut et deus Aug. | et ipse] et deus p. Cyp. ?/,-ed. 
1/,-cod. ij τ : deus Cyp-cod. 1/;: om. et Cyp-codd. 1/; | manet] manebit 
ς -ed. 5. . 

ia pueri] filioli Vg. Iren. Euch. | sicut] quemadmodum Iren. : quoniam 
1°] quia Vg. Cyp. */. Luc.: quod Aug. | uenit] sit uenturus Aug. | nunc] 
pr. et Vg. :+autem p. Cyp. “/, Aug. Luc. | multi] om. Cyp-cod. /, | facti] 
om. Luc. | cognoscimus] scimus Vg. | quoniam 2°] quod Vg. Aug. : quia 
Cyp. 7/2 | nouissima hora Vg. | hora est] sit hora Aug. 

19. Cf. quia non erant nostri, nam si nostri essent, mansissent nobiscum 
Opt. | exierunt] prodierunt Vg. Tert. | erat] erant Vg. Aug. Iren. Amb. : 
fuerunt Tert. Cyp. °/;: sunt Petilianus ap. Aug. | ex 2°] de Pet-ap-Aug, | nam 
—nobis 3°] si enim ex nobis essent Amb. | nam si] quod si Aug. : si enim Cyp. 
5/, Iren. : siTert. | fuisset] fuissent Vg. Aug. Tert. Cyp. °/; Iren. : essent 
Pet-ap-Aug. | ex 3°] de Pet-ap-Aug. | permansissent] mansissent Cyp. 2/,-ed. 
*/;-cod. 1/; Aug. Amb. : mansisset Cyp-cod. }/; | forsitan] utique Vg. Aug. 
Tert. Cyp-ed. 1/;-cod. 4/; Iren. Pet-ap-Aug. : om. Cyp-ed. 4/;-cod. 1/; Amb, 

| praesto fiat] manifesti sint Vg. : manifestarentur Aug. Iren. | quoniam] 
quod Aug. | sunt omnes] omnes erant Aug. : om. omnes Iren. 

20. et] sed Vg. | accepistis] habetis Vg. Aug. | et nostis omnia] ut zpsz 
mandzfeste sites Aug. 

21. Cf. Cognoscite ergo quoniam omne mendacium extraneum est et non 
est de ueritate Iren. | non 1°—scientibus] scribo uobis non quod nescieritis 
sed quia nostis Aug. | scientibus] pr. quasi Vg. | quoniam] quia Aug. | 
omne Aug. Spec. | non est ex ueritate Aug. | ex] de Spec-ed. 

22. qui autem negat Im Xm in carnem (-ne 1.2) uenisse hic antechristus 
estPrisc. ?/, | is] om. Iren. | quia 15] quod Iesus Aug. | quia] quoniam Vg. 
Iren. | est 2°] pr. non p. Aug. Iren. | hic—filium] om. Aug. 

23. negat filium] non filium (+habet h*) ἢ. (Buch.) | om. et ἢ. (Buch.) 
| cf. qui non habet filium nec patrem habet qui autem habet filium 
et patrem habet Cass. 1... | omnis]? om. Cyp. cf. von Soden, 225 | negat] 
non crediderit in Luc. | nec] 27. nec filium Aug. | qui 2°] pr. et Aug. :+ 
autem p. Prisc. Spec. :+uero Luc. | confitetur] credit in Luc. | et patrem] pr. 
et filium Cyp. ?/, Prisc. Spec-ed. : + et filium Luc. 

24. uos] pr. ergo Aug. :+autem p. | ab initio audistis Aug. | permaneat 
in uobis] in uobis permaneat Vg. : in uobis maneat Aug. | quod si] si Vg. | 
permanserit] manserit Aug. | audistis ab initio Aug. | manebitis Vg. Aug. 

25. et]om. Aug. | promissio] repromissio Vg. : pollicitatio Aug. 

26. eis] his Vg. Aug. | seducunt uos] uos seducunt ut sciatis quia 
unctionem habetis Aug. 

27. uos unctionem] unctio Aug. | accepimus Aug. | permaneat] maneat 
Vg. | uobis] nobis Aug. | necesse non habetis] non necesse habetis Vg. : non 
habetis necessitatem Aug. | uos doceat Aug. | sed sicut] quia Aug. | eius] 
ipsius Aug. | uerum] uerax Aug. | mendum] mendacium ἢ" Vg. : mendax 
Aug. | et 3°] om. Aug. | manete Vg. | eo 2°] ipsa Aug. 

28. filioli Vg. | uenerit] apparuerit Vg.: manifestatus fuerit Aug. | 
fiduciam habeamus] habeamus fiduciam Vg.: habeamus fiduciam in con- 
spectu eius Aug. | et] ut Aug. | praesentia] aduentu Vg. Aug. 

29. scimus] scitis Vg. Aug. | quoniam 1°, 2°] quia Aug. | omnis] pr. et 
Vg. | est natus Aug. 

iii. 1. ecce] uidete Vg. | caritatem] dilectionem Aug. | uocaremur] nomi- 
nemur Vg.: uocemur Aug. : appellamur Aug. | sumus] simus Vg. Aug. | 
propterea—inhonorat] propter hoc mundus non nouit nos quia non nouit 
eum Vg. p. (et ipsum ignorabat fro non nouit eum): propter hoc mundus 
non cognoscit nos quia non cognouit eum et nos non cognoscit mundus Aug. 

2. carissimi] dilectissimi Aug. | nunc.] om. Aug. | et nondum] necdum 
Hier. '/, | manifestatum est] apparuit Vg. Aug.: revelatum est Amb.: of 
nescimus Hier, 4/, | qui futuri sumus] quid erimus Vg. Aug. Amb. : quod 


APPENDIX 209 


erimus Aug. | qui] quid Tert. Hier. 1/,: quales Hier. 1/, | scimus] 27. sed 
Amb. : nouimus autem Hier. | quoniam] quia Aug. Tert. Amb. Hier. | cum 
apparuerit] si manifestauerit Tert. (manifestatus fuerit cod.) | apparuerit] 
reuelatum fuerit Amb. : ille reuelatus fuerit Hier. | ei erimus Aug. | ei] illi 
Aug-codd, : eius Tert. | quoniam uidebimus] uidebimus enim Hier. 1.9. 

3. habet—eo] spem istam in illo habet Tert. | hance spem Vg. | eo] ipso 
Aug. : eum Aug. | castificat] sanctificat Vg. Aug. | se] semet ipsum Aug. | 
sicut] quia Tert. | et 2°] om. p. | ille] ipse Aug. Tert. | castus] sanctus Vg. 
Aug. 

4. peccatum 1°] delictum Aug. | et 1°]om. Aug. Amb. | et 2°] om. Aug. 

| peccatum 2°] delictum Tert. 

5. quoniam] quia Vg. Aug. | apparuit] manifestatus est Aug. Tert. 
(sit) | peccata tolleret] auferat delicta Tert. | peccata]+nostra Vg. : peccatum 
Aug. 1). | tolleret] auferat Aug. | et 2°—est]om. Aug. (uid.) | illo] eo Vg. : 
ipso Aug. 

6. in eo permanet] in eo manet Vg. Aug.: in ipso manet Aug. : manet 
in illo Tert. | peccat 1°] delinquit Tert. | omnis 2°] pr. et Vg. | peccat 2°] 
delinquit Tert. | non 2°] neque Tert. | uidit] uidet p. | eum 1°] om. Tert. 

7. filii Luc. | seducat] fallat Luc | qui] pr. omnis Tert. | est]+sicut et 
ille iustus est Vg. Aug. Tert. Spec. (07. et cod.). 

8. Cf. omnis qui peccat non est de deo sed de diabolo est et scitis quoniam 
ideo uenturus est ut perdat filios diaboli De aleat. | autem] om. Vg. Tert. 
Spec. | peccatum] delictum Tert. | de] ex Vg. Tert. : a Luc. Spec-ed. | quia] 
quoniam Vg. Tert. Luc. | ab—peccat] diabolus a primordio delinquit Tert. | 
ab initio] origine Luc. | in hoc] pr. et Spec. : idcirco Luc. 1/,: ad hoc enim 
Luc. 1/2:+enim Tert. | apparuit] zc. Cod-Freis. (ed. Ziegler): manifestatus 
est Aug. Tert. : declaratus est Luc. */, | soluat] dissoluat Vg.: solueret Luc. 
?/, Spec. | opera] operas Luc-cod. 1}. 

9. ex] de ἢ. | natus 1°—do 1°] ex deo nascitur Tert. | peccatum non 
- facit] non peccat Aug. 1/, Spec. | peccatum] delictum Tert. | quia] quoniam 
Vg. | semen] sensus Spec-codd. | eius] ipsius Vg. Aug. Cass.: dei Tert. | 
ipso] eoh. Vg. Aug. Cass. : illo Tert. | manet] est Cass. | peccare] delinquere 
Tert. | quoniam] quia Aug. Tert. Cass-cod. Spec. | de] ex Vg. Aug. Tert. 

10. ex hoc] in hoc ἢ. Vg. Aug. Tert. Cyp.: hine Spec. | manifesti sunt] 
manifestati sunt Aug. : apparent Cyp. Luc. Spec. | et filii] dzs scr. h. | omnis] 
om. Tert. Spec-cod. | facit iustitiam] est iustus Vg. Aug. Tert. Cyp. Luc ?/, 
Spec. | de] ex Vg. Tert. Luc. 2,5 Spec.: a Aug. | diligit] amat Luc. 3,5} 
fratrem suum] patrem suum aut matrem suam Cyp-cod. 

II. quoniam] quia Aug. | hoc—quod] haec est annunciatio quam Vg. 
Aug. haec est (om. est 1/,) repromissio quam Luc. ?/, | audiuimus Aug. | 
ie waa Luc 1,5 | diligamus] amemus Luc. ?/, | inuicem] alterutrum Vg. 
Lue. 7/9. 

12. nonJpr. et Luc. ?/, | qui] om. ἢ. Aug-ed. Luc. ?/, | erat] fuit Luc. 2/, | 
occidit 1°] interfecit Luc. /. | cuius sei gratia] propter quid Vg. Luc. 2/, | 
occidit 2°] interfecit Luc. /, | eum] om. Aug. | quia] quoniam ἢ. (Buch.) Vg. 
Luc. ?/, | eius 1°Jillius Luc. 1,5 : ipsius Luc. 3/2 | erant]erat h.* : fuerunt Aug. 
Luc. */, | autem] uero Aug. | eius 2°] ipsius Aug-cod.: sui Luc. 32... : om. 
Aug-codd. 

13. et] om. ἢ. Vg. Aug. Luc. 1/, | fratres] om. p. | nos] uos Vg. | hic 
mundus] om. hic Vg. Aug. : saeculum Luc 3... 

14. quoniam] quia ἢ. (Ber.) Aug. | transimus] translati sumus Vg. : 
[translati s]umus ἢ. (Buch.): transiuimus p. (-ibi-) Aug. : transitum fecimus 
Luc. */, | de] a Luc. ?/, | adj inh. p. | quia] quoniam Vg. Luc. ?/, | diligimus] 
amamus Luc. ?/, | qui—mortem] omnis qui fratrem suum non diligit manebit in 
morte Faust. | qui]+autem Luc. ?/, | diligit] amat Luc. ?/, | permanet] manet 
Vg. Aug. Luc. ?/, | mortem] morte ἢ. cett. 

15. omnis qui] quicunque Hier. | omnis 1°]? om, Cyp. 575 | qui]+enim 


14 


210 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


Cyp-cod. 1/, | quia] quoniam ἢ. Vg. Cyp-cod. 1/, | uitam—se] in se uitam Cyp- 
ed. 7/2: om. aeternum Luc. 1/, | se] semet ipso. Vg. | manentem] om. Cyp- 
cod. 4/.. 

16. in hoc] et quia ex hoc Spec. (om. et codd.) | cognoscimus] cognouimus 
ἢ. (Buch.) Vg. | caritatem]+Dei Vg. : dilectionem Aug.:+ipsius Spec. | 
quia] quoniam Vg. Spec. | pro nobis] fost suam Vg. : propter nos Luc. | pro 
fratribus] fost animas Aug.:+nostris Spec-ed. | pro 2°] de ἢ. | animas] 
animam ἢ. Vict. Vit. :+nostras Luc. Spec-ed. 

17. qui] quicunque Spec. | autem] om. Vg. Cyp. 2/, | substantiam] 
facultates Aug. | huius] om. Aug. Cyp. ?/, Spec. | suum egere] cui opus 
[est] h. (Buch.) | egere] necessitatem habere Vg.: esurientem Aug. : 
desiderantem Cyp. (+ aliquid cod.) ?/, | ab eo] om. Cyp. 1/,-ed. 4/, | Caritas 
dei manet] poterit caritas (dilectio Aug.) dei manere Aug. Cyp-cod. 4/, 
caritas] agape Cyp-cod. 1/,: dilectio Cyp-cod. 1,5 | dei] om. Cyp-cod. 7/, 
permanet ἢ. | eo] illo Cyp. ?/. Spec-ed. 

18. filioli]++mei Vg. | tantum] om. Vg. : post uerbo p. Aug. | uerba ἢ. ἢ 

| neque] et hp. Aug. Spec. 

19. et] om. ἢ. Vg. | cognoscimus h. Vg. | coram ipso] in conspectu eius 
Vg. | suadebimus h. Vg. | corda nostra Vg. 

20. si]+non p. | reprehenderit Vg. | corde ἢ. | et] exp/. h. 

21. reprehenderit nos Vg. | nos] om. Aug-cod. | reprehendit Cyp-codd. 
Ep-Sev-ad-Claud. | habemus] habebimus Aug-cod. : habeamus Luc. | apud] 
ad Vg. Cyp. Aug. Luc. Ep-Sev. 

22. quidquid] quodcunque p. Cyp.: quaecunque Aug. Ep-Sev. | 
accipiamus Cyp-cod. | eius 1°] om. Luc. | seruamus] custodiimus p. : 
custodimus Luc. | quae] pr. ea Vg. | sunt placita] ei placent Luc. hia 
conspectu eius] coram eo Vg. : ante conspectum eius Luc. | faciamus Luc. 

23. et 1°—credamus] om. Luc. | nomini] in nomine Vg. Luc. | eius 2°] 
ipsius Luc. | diligamus] amemus nos Luc. | inuicem] alterutrum Vg. | 
mandatum nobis Vg. 

24. mandata Vg. | manebit] manet Vg. | permanet] manet Vg. 

iv. 1. Kmi] dilectissimi Aug. | sps 1°—sunt] spiritum qui ex deo est 
Aug. 1/. | ex] a Spec-codd. | sint Vg. Cass. | qm] quia Aug. | prodierunt] 
exierunt Vg. Iren. Luc. 2,5 Spec. | in hoc saeculo] in mundum Vg. : in istum 
mundum Aug. : de saeculo Iren. : in hunc mundum p. Spec. : om. hoc Luc. 

2. hinc]in hoc Vg. Aug. Iren.: ex hoc Luc. | cognoscitur sps] cognoscite 
spiritum Iren. : intellegite spiritum Luc. | Christum Iesum Prisc. 3,5 | IHM] 
om. Prisc. 1/; | XPM] om. Cass. | in carne uenisse] om. Prisc. 3,4 | carnem 
Prisc. 2/3 | ex. de Cyp. Prisc. 3,5 Amb. 

3. Cf. Qui autem negat in carne uenisse de deo non est sed est de anti- 
christi spiritu (antichristus cod.) Cyp. (cf. etiam Epist. 73. 15): et omnis 
spiritus qui soluit Christum in carne uenisse non est ex deo Aug. 1,5 : omnis 
qui soluit Iesum Christum et negat eum in carne uenisse non est ex deo Aug. 
1/, | omnis sps qui] quicunque sps Amb. 1.5 (uid.): omnis qui Amb. }/, (uid.) 
Cass. 4/, | non confitetur] soluit p. Vg. Tert. 1,5 (uid.) Iren. Prisc. ἢ... Cass. 
4/,: negat Tert. 12 Prisc. 1/, Amb. 4/, (cf. Cyp.): destruit Luc. | IHM] 
Iesum Christum in carne uenisse Aug. Tert. 1/. (om. Iesum) Amb. ?/, | non 
est ex do Aug. | ex] de Amb. }/, Prisc. ?/, | et 2°—antixpisti] et hic anti- 
christus est Tert. 1... Prisc. Cass-cod. 4/,: sed de antichristo est Iren.: et 
hoc est antichristi Cass. ?/,-ed. 1/; | hoc] hic p. Vg. Aug. | illus antixpisti p. ] 
antichristus Vg. Aug. | illius] quod est Luc. | quem] de quo Vg. Aug. : 
quod Cass. | quia] quoniam Vg. | uenturus est] uenit Vg. Cass. | nunc]+iam 
Vg. Cass. | saeculo] mundo Vg. 

4. iamjom. Vg. | et uicistis eos] uincite illos De sing. cler. | eos] eum Vg. 
Aug. | qm] quia Aug. Paul-Nol. 3/, | maior] potior Paul-Nol. 1/3 | est in 


APPENDIX 211: 


uobis Aug. | uobis] nobis Cass. Paul-Nol. 3.9 | hic—est 3°] qui in mundo Vg. : 
qui in hoc mundo est Aug. : qui in hoc mundo Cyp. 1/, Cass. Paul-Nol. */,: 
qui in isto mundo Cyp. 3/5. 

5. hiiJipsi Vg. : isti Luc. | saeculo 1°] mundo Vg. Aug. | propterea] ideo 
Vg. Aug. ΣΕ 2°] mundo Vg. Aug. | saeculum audit eos] mundus eos 
audit Vg. Aug. 

6. nos 1°]+autem Luc. | cognoscit] nouit Vg. Aug. | qui 2°]+autem 
Luc. | nos audit] audit nos Luc. | hinc] in hoc Vg.: ex hoc Aug. Luc, | 
cognoscimus spm] cognoscitur spiritus Aug. : intellegimus spiritum Luc, 

7. kmi] dilectessimi Aug. | diligamus] amemus Luc. | inuicem] 27. nos 
Vg.: nos alterutrum Luc. | qm] quia Vg. Aug. | fratrem suum] om, Vg. 
Aug. De rebap. | suum] om. p. | cognoscit] cognouit Aug. 

8. qui—dm] om. Aug. (uid.) De rebap. (uid.) | qui] quicunque Luc. | 
diligit]+fratrem Luc. | ignorat] non nouit Vg. Aug. Luc. | quia] quoniam 
Vg. Luc. | caritas] dilectio Aug. De rebap. Claud. Mam. 

9. in] ex Luc. Spec. | apparuit] manifestata est Aug. Spec. (manifesta 
cod.): declarata est Luc. | caritas] dilectio Aug. | di] Domini Spec-ed. | 
nobis] uobis Spec-ed. | qm] quia Aug.: quod Spec. | unicum] unigenitum 
Vg. Aug. | ds] om. Aug. Spec. | saeculo] mundum Vg. : hunc mundum p. 
Aug. Spec. : saeculum Luc. | eum] ipsum Aug. Spec-ed. 

10. caritas] dilectio Aug. | quod] quasi Vg. : quia Aug. | nos 1°] om. 
Aug. | dilexerimus] dileximus Aug.: amauerimus Luc. | dm] om. Aug. : 
dnm. Aug-cod. | qm] quia Aug. : quod Luc. | ipse dilexit nos] prior nos ille 
dilexit Cass. | ipse]+ prior Vg. Aug. | dilexit] amauerit Luc. | misit] miserit 
Luc.] propitiaiorem] propitiationem Vg. : litatorem Aug. : expiatorem Luc. 

| pro peccatis nostris] peccatorum nostrorum Luc. | . 

11. Kmi] dilectissimi Aug. | si sic] sicut p. | si]+ergo] Luc. | sic] ita 
Aug. | dilexit] amauit Luc.] debemus et nos Aug. | et] sic p. | diligere 
inuicem] alterutrum diligere Vg.: inuicem diligere Aug.: alterutrum 
amare Luc. 

12. quod si] si Vg. Aug. | diligimus p. | manebit Aug. | caritas] dilectio 
ae | perfecta—nobis] in nobis perfecta est Vg.: erit perfecta in nobis 

ug. 

13. in 1°] ex Vict.Vit. | cognoscimus] scimus Vict. Vit.: intellegimus 
p. | qnm] quia Aug. Vict. Vit. | in 2°9—ipse] om. Vict.Vit. | ipso] eo Vg. | 
qm] quia Aug. Vict.Vit. | suo] dei p.: sancto Vict. Vit. 

14. testamur] testificamur Vg.: testes sumus Aug. | qm] quia p. 
Aug. | pater misit] misit deus Cass. | saeculi] mundi Vg. Aug. 

15. quicunque] quisquis Vg. Cass-cod.: qui Aug. τ. Tert. Cass-cod. : 
quisque Cass-ed. | confessus fuerit] crediderit Cass. | qm] quod Aug.] ihs] 
Christus Tert. (uid.) | eo] ipso Aug. : illo Tert. Cass. | ipse in do] caritas dei 
in eo perfecta est Cass. (?). fy 

16. credimus p. | in 1°—ds 1°] quam dilectionem deus habet Aug. | in 
caritate 1°] caritati Vg. | caritas] dilectio Aug. Cyp. 1/, Paul-Nol. : agape 
Cyp-cod. }/, } et 3°] om. Cyp. 1/. Cass-ed. | in 3°—do] in deo in dilectione 
Cyp-codd. 1,4 | caritate 2°] dilectione Aug. Cyp. 1/.: agape Cyp. }/? | 
permanet] manet Vg. Aug. Cyp. 3,5 Cass. | eo] illo Aug. 1,5 Cyp. 7/,: 
ipso Cass. | manet 2°] om. Vg. Cyp-codd. 1/, Aug. Cass. 

17. karitas in nobis] dilectio (+eius 1.5) in nobis Aug. 53). : in nobis 
dilectio Aug. 1/,| karitas]+Dei Vg. | in nobis] nobiscum Vg.|.. .] ut 
Vg. Aug. | habeamus Vg. Aug. Cass. | die Aug. Cass-ed. 

18. caritate] dilectione Aug. !/, Tert. | sed]+enim Tert. | perfecta] con- 
summata Aug. | caritas] dilectio Aug. 3/, Tert. */; Amb. Salv. Tyr. Ruf. 
Hier. | foras mittit] foras abicit Tert. 1/;: excludit foras Amb. | foris Aug- 


212 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


cod. | qm] quia Aug. Tert. 1/, | poenam] tormentum Aug. : suppliciamentum 
Tert. 1.5. | qui autem] et qui Tert. 1/, | caritatem] dilectione Aug. Tert. ?/,. 

19. ergo] om. Aug. | diligamus]+deum Vg. | qm] quia Aug. Cass. | 
ipse] deus Vg. Cass. (?) | nos dilexit Aug. "/y. _ 

20. quis] qui Cyp-ed. | dicit Luc. | diligo dm] fv. quoniam Vg. : quoniam 
diligit dm Cyp. : quia diligit dm Luc. : <de>se quod deum diligit Faust. | 
odit—suum 2°] om. p.* | oderit Vg. | enim] autem Luc. | diligit] amat Luc. | 
quem uidet] om. Cyp-cod. Luc. | dm 2°] dominum Aug.-codd. | quomodo] 
non Cyp-ed. Luc. ᾿ 

21. hoc]+ergo p. | a do] ab ipso Aug. Luc. : ab eo p. | diligit] amat 
Luc. | diligat]amet Luc. 

v. I quia] quoniam Vg.: quod Aug. | est 1°] sit Aug. : om. Spec. | est 
2°]+deus in ipso est et ipse in deo Spec. | genitorem] eum qui genuit Vg. : 
qui genuit eum Aug. | eum] pr. et Vg. | genitus—eo] ex deo (eo p.) natus est 
p. Spec-ed. : natus est ex ipso Spec-codd. | genitus] natus Vg. 

2. hinc] in hoc Vg. Aug. | cognoscimus] intellegimus Luc. | qm] quia 
Aug. | diligimus 1°] amamus Luc. | filios] natos Vg. | cum] quia Aug. : 
quando Luc. | diligimus dm] deum diligamus Vg. : deum diligimus Aug. : 
amamus dm Luc. | mandata] praecepta Aug. | eius] ipsius Luc. | facimus] 
faciamus Vg. : seruauimus p. 

3. caritas]+dei Vg. Aug. Luc. : dilectio dei Aug. | ut—seruemus] om. 
Luc. | mandata 1°] praecepta Aug. | seruemus] explic. Aug. : custodiamus 
Vg. : obseruemus Aug. | eius] ipsius Luc. 

4. quia] quoniam Vg. | saeculum 1°, 2°] mundum Vg. 

5. quis] qui p. | autem] 07. Vg. | saeculum] mundum Vg. | credidit p. | 
quia] quoniam Vg. 

6. et 2°] om. Vg. De rebap. | tantum in aqua] in aqua solum Vg, | testi- 
monium] qui testificatur Vg.: qui testimonium perhibet De rebap.: qui 
testimonium reddit Spec. | quia] quoniam Vg. | sps] Christus p. Vg. 

7, 8. quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo Pater uerbum et 
Spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra 
spiritus et aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt Vg. : cf. e¢ zterum de patre et 
Jjilio et spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt Cyp. : quia tres testimonium 
perhibent spiritus et aqua et sanguis et isti tres unum sunt De rebap. ?/, (in 
unum cod. 4/,, cf. von Soden, Das lateinische NT. in Afrika, p. 280): tres 
testes sunt aqua sanguis et spiritus Amb.: tria sunt quae testimonium 
perhibent aqua sanguis (+et 1/.) Spiritus Euch. 3.2 : tria sunt qui testimonium 
dicunt in terra aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt 
quae testimonium dicunt in caelo pater uerbum et spiritus et haec tria unum 
sunt in Christo Iesu Prisc. : tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent (dant cod.) 
in caelo pater uerbum (et filius codd.) et spiritus sanctus (07. sanctus cod.) et 
hi tres unum sunt Vict. Vit. : tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo pater 
uerbum et spiritus et hii tres unum sunt Spec. 1/.: quoniam (quia p. Spec- 
cod.) tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt (dant p.) in terra spiritus aqua et 
sanguis et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu et tres sunt qui testimonium 
dicunt (dant p.) in caelo pater uerbum et (07. et p.) spiritus (+sanctus p. 
Spec-cod.) et hii tres unum sunt p. Spec. }/,. 

9. accepimus p. | quia 1°—di 2°] om. p. | quia 1°] quoniam Vg. | quia 
2°] quod maius est quoniam Vg. | testatus est Tert. 

10. filio 1°] filium Vg. | di 2°] eius Spec. | se] semet ipso Spec. | qui 2°] 
+autem Spec. | in do] filio Vg. : Iesu Christo Spec. | eum] deum Spec. | 
quia non credit] quoniam non credidit p. | in testimonium] testimonio p. 
Spec. | eius] om. Vg. Spec. | ds] om. Spec. 

12. Cf. qui filium non habet nec uitam habet Tert. | di 1°] om. Vg. 


APPENDIX : 215 


Prisc. :+in se p. | uitam habet] habet uitam p.(+eternam) Vg. | di 2°] om, 
Vg. Prisc. 

13. haec] pr. carissimi p. | scripsi p. | quia] quoniam Vg. 

14. ad eum] apud dm p. | quidquid] quodcumque Vg. 

15. si] om. Vg. | quia] qm p. | petiuimus] postulamus Vg. 

16. si quis] qui Vg. Cass. : omnis qui p. | peccare] delinquere Tert. 2/, 
Hil. | peccatum 1°] delictum Tert. 2,2: om. Hil. | no] pr. sed Hil. | 
postulabit] petat Vg. Hil. : petat pro eo p. | dabit ei uitam] dabitur ei uita Vg. 
Tert. 1/, Cass-codd. 1/,:+deus p. Cass-codd. ?/, | ei] illi deus Hil. | his— 
mortem 2°] peccanti non ad mortem p. Vg. Cass. (pr. sed p. cod. }/,: 
peccantibus ed. 1.2) : qui (quia 1..) non ad mortem delinquit Tert. 2/,: ov. 
Hil. | enim] om. Vg. Tert. 1,2. | peccatum 2°] delictum Tert. ?/, | usque 2°] ov. 
Vg. Tert. ?/, Hil. Cass. | non 3°] pr. sed Hil. | pro] de Tert. 4/, | ut postulet] 
om. Hil. (uid.) | postulet] roget quis Vg.: 27. quis Tert. 3,5: roget Cass. 
(rogent Codd.) Aug. (+quis cod.). 

17. iniustitia] iniquitas Vg. | peccatum 1°, 2°] delictum Tert. 

18. qm] quia Vg. : quod Tert. | est] sit Tert. | peccat] delinquit Tert. | 
natiuitas] generatio Vg. Aug. Cass. 

19. totus—est]saeculum totum in malo positum est Salv. | mundus totus 
Vg. | totus] omnis Prise. | mundus] pr. hic Paul-Nol. (uid.) | positus est] iacet 
Paul-Nol. 

20. uenit]+et carnem uiduit nostri causa et passus est et resurrexit a 
mortuis adsumpsit nos p. Spec. | et 1-—XPO] Cf. et nos dedit sensum per quem 
sciremus quod est uerbum in Christo Iesu Paul.Oros. | intellectum] sensum 
Vg. Paul.Oros. Spec. | sciamus] cognoscamus Vg. : cognosceremus Spec. | 
quod est uerum] uerum deum Vg. : eum qui (quia codd.) uerus est Spec. | et 
3°] ut Spec-cod. | uero] uerbum Spec-codd. | 110 XPO] om. Vg. | hic] 
ipse Aug. | ds] om. Spec. | aeterna]+et resurrectio nostra Spec. 

21. filioli] fratres Aug. | custodite uos] cauete Aug. | ab idolis]a simulacris 
Vg. Aug. Spec. + Amen Vg. 


ἀγαπᾶν . . .  diligerehq Vg. Aug. (iii. 14) amare Luc. 
i ΠΡ ΚΑΤ {π|: 22). τῳ Το: 
dilexerimus q Vg. (iv. 10) amauerimus Luc. 
dileximus Aug. 
diligere q Vg. Aug. De rebap. (iv. 7, 11) amare Luc. 
»  q Vg. Aug. (iv. 20) ΠῚ ἸΠΙῸ: 
»  q Vg. Aug. (v. 2) ea Lue: 
ἀγάπη . » « Caritas ἢ Vg. (ii. 5) dilectio Aug. 
5» πα Vee) {1||. 16)» Δπρι 
pike, Ne (iii, 17) ,, Aug. Cyp-cod. 1/, agape Cyp- 
cod. }/,. 
»" ποι ἵν)... Aug. De rebap. 
»  q Vg. (iv. 9, I0, 12, 17) dilectio Aug. agape 
SPE rie 
5  q Vg. (iv. 16) dilectio Aug. Cyp. }/,. 
.j g Wet Augr(v.03)F 55) aus. uc: 
ΜᾺ Vg. (3 Jn. 6) - ier! 
ἀγαπητός . . carissimush Vg. (ii. 7)  dilectissimus Aug. 
BP q Vg. (iv. 7, 11) Ὲ Aug. 


15 Vg. (3 Jn. 1) loa Aug. 
ἀγγελία. . . mandatum ἢ 4 (111. 11) annunciatio Vg. Aug. repromissio 
Luc. 


ayvifey . . . castificare ἢ (iii. 3) sanctificare Vg. Aug. 
ἁγνός. . . . castush (iii. 3) sanctus Vg. Aug. 
ἀδικα . . . iniquitash Vg, Aug. (i. 9) iniustitia Tert. 


214 


ἀδικία e e . 
alpew. « ο- 
αἰτεῖν τ Se 


ἐρωτᾶν 
ἀλαζονία τοῦ Βίου 


ἀλλήλους « εκ .ς 


ἁμαρτάνειν . ὁ 
αἰμαρτία «κα 
ἄν . . eo. e 
ἀφιέναι ee se 
Blos . . e . 
τὸν γεννήσαντα. 
τὸν γεγεννημένον 
ὁ γεννηθείς , . 


γινώσκειν 6 « 


διὰ TOUTO. 
δίκαιον io elas 


εἴδωλον . . ὁ 
EUTON τον ἢ 


ἐξεληλύθασιν 
ἐξῆλθαν aie 


ἔξω βάλλει . 


ἐπιθυμία. «6 ς 


ἱλασμός os 6 Je 


Kkabaplfew .« « 
καθώς. ° ry . 


THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


iniquitas Vg. (v. 17) iniustitia q. 
tollere h Vg. (iii. 5) auferre Aug. 
petere, petere q (v. 15) petere, postulare Vg. 
postulare q Tert. (v. 16) petere Vg. Hil. 
postulare q Tert. (v. 16) rogare Vg. Aug. Cass, 
(ii. 16) superbia uitae ἢ Vg, 
ambitio saeculi Cyp. Aug. 
», mundi Cyp-cod. */4. 
»,  humanae uitae Prise. 
inuicem q Aug. (iii. 23) alterutrum Vg. 
»,  q Aug. (iv. 7) nos inuicem Vg. nos alterutrum Luc. 
- «GQ Aue: alterutrum Vg. Luc. 
29 Aug. (2 Jn. 5 3) Vg. 
peccare ve Aug. (i, 10) delaqueret Cyp. Tert. 


ΕΣ) g. (ν. 16) 39 Tert. Hil. 
recent h ae, Cyp. (i. 9) delictum Tert. Aug. 
5 h Vg. (ili. 5) ἢ Tert. Aug. 


forsitan h (ii. 19) utique Vg. Aug. Cyp. (om. ed. 1/; cod.|?/5). 

remittere h Vg. (i. 9) dimittere Cyp. Tert. Aug. Spec. 

substantia h q Vg. Cyp. facultates Aug. 

genitorem 4 (v. 1) eum qui genuit Vg. qui genuit eum 

ug. 

qui genitus est q Aug. (v. i.) qui natus est Vg. Spec. 

natiuitas q (v. 18) generatio Vg. Aug. Cass. 

scire h Vg. (ii. 5) cognoscere Aug. 

cognoscere q Vg. Aug. (v. 2) intelligere Luc. 

propterea q (iv. 5) ideo Vg. Au 

iustum ἢ Vg. ye Aug. (ii. Ἢ} suffragatorem Cyp. 
cod. 1/,. 

idolum q (v. 21) simulacrum Vg. Aug. Spec. 

mandatum h Vg. Aug. (ii. 3) praeceptum Cyp. 


39 τὸν (ν. 2) 9 Aug. 
” q Vg. (v. 3) ” Aug. 
Vg. Lue. (2 Jn. 5) ”, Aug. 
prodierunt q Aug. (iv. 1) exierunt Vg. Luc. Spec. 


Ap Vg. Tert. (ii. 19) »" | BY Cyp. ae 
(prodiit h (Buch.). 
profecti sunt Vg. (3 Jn. 7) 5 Hier. 
(iv. 18) foras mittit q Vg. Aug. Tert. 7/5. 
foras abicit Tert. }/, 
excludit foras Amb. 
concupiscentia ἢ Cyp. Vg. (ii. 16) desiderium Aug. 
uoluntas Prisc. 
5 h Cyp. Vg. (ii. 17) desideria Aug. 
(ii. 2) exoratio h. 
propitiatio Vg. 
propitiator Aug. 
placatio Tert. Hil. 
deprecatio Cyp. 
? satisfactio et placatio Ad Vigil. 
(iv. 10) propitiator q. 
propitiatio Vg. 
litator Aug. 
expiator Luc. 
purgare h (i, 9) emundare Vg. Tert. mundare Aug. Spec. 
quemadmodum h (ii. 6) sicut Vg. Aug. quomodo Cyp. 
Hier. 


μαρτυροῦμεν. 


μεταβεβήκαμεν. 


APPENDIX 215 


uocaremur h (iii. 1) nominemur Vg. appellemur Aug. 

uocemur Aug. 

poena q Vg. Tert. 1/, (iv. 18) tormentum Aug. supplicia- 
mentum Tert. 1... 


saeculum h (ii. 2) mundus Vg. Aug. 
Me h Cyp. (ii. 16) "ΝΕ Ae Cyn: 
33 h (ii. 17) so Veena Cyp: 


ne Lue, (ili. 13) » hq Vg. Aug. 
” q (iv. I, 5) 14) » Vg. Aug. 
ue q Lue. (iv. 9) 3) Mg. Aug. ‘Spec. 
ἊΣ (2 Jn. 7) Luc. a : 
uerbum ἢ Vg. (i. 10) sermo Tert. 
(iv. 14) testamur q. 
testificamur Yg. 
testes sumus Aug. 
(v. 7, 8) testimonium dare Vg. 
testificari q. 
testimonium perhibere De rebap. Euch, Vict. Vit. 
testis esse Amb. 
testimonium dicere Prisc. Spec. 
(ili, 14) transimus ἢ q. 
translati sumus Vg. ἢ (Buch.). 
transiuimus Aug. 
transitum fecimus Luc. 
unicus q (iv. 9) unigenitus Vg. Aug. 
iuuenis ἢ Aug. (ii. 13) adolescens Vg. 
ον Wg. Aug. (ii. 14) Dy ἢ. 
(ii. 4) se noscere ἢ, 
se nosse Vg. 
quia cognouit (-ui) Cyp. Aug. 
pueri h Aug. (ii. 14) infantes Vg. 
aduocatus h Vg. Cyp. Aug. (ii. 1) paracletus Faust. Vict. 
Vit. 


praesentia ἢ (ii. 28) aduentus Vg. Aug. 
occidit ἢ q Vg. Aug. (iii. 12) interfecit. 
haec h Vg. Aug. (ii. 1) ista Cyp. 
filii q Aug. (v. 2) nati Vg. 
fili h (ii, 1) filioli Vg. Cyp. Aug. Tert. fratres Aug. 
perfectus q Vg. Aug. (iv. 18) consummatus Aug. 
seruare h Aug. (ii. 3) obseruare Vg. custodire Cyp. Luc. 
» eu) (is) i h Vg. 
» gq Vg. Aug. (iii. 22) ae Luc. 
» q Aug. (v. 3) obseruare Luc. ,, Vg. 
obscoecare ἢ Vg. (11. 11) excaecare Cyp. Aug. obscurare 
Luc. 
manifestus esse Vg. (ii. 10). 
manifestari Aug. (ii. 19, 28, iii. 2), h (iii. 2), Tert. (iii. 2), 
Tert. Aug. (ili. 8), Aug. Spec. (iv. 9). 
praesto esse h (ii. 19). 
uenire h (11. 28). 
apparere Vg. (ii. 28) Vg.'Aug, (iii. 2) hq Vg. (iii. 8) q Vg. 
(iv. 9). 
reuelari Amb, (iii. 2). 
declarari Luc. (iii. 8, iv. 9). 
lumen ἢ Vg. (il. 7) lux Aug. 
» h Aug. (7/2) (ii, 9) lux Vg. Aug. (1/,) Cyp. 
(Spec. ). 


216 THE EPISTLES OF 8. JOHN 


χρείαν ἔχειν . . (111. 17) egere q. 
(cui) opus [est] ἢ (Buch.). 
necessitatem habere Vg. 
desiderantem Cyp. 
esurientem Aug. 


COLLATION OF THE OLD LaTIN TEXT WITH THE GREEK 
(ED. NESTLE). 


1 το | pr. ‘et 
om. o εθεασαμεθα. 
. ἢ ζωὴ] ipsa uita. 
μαρτυρουμεν] testes sumus, 
nw] in nobis. 
4. ο] quae. 
και υμιν] uodbis. 
μετα 1°] pr. 571. 
μετα του πατρος]) cum Deo Patre. 
μετα 2°] om. 
Tov viov αυτου] post Χριστου. 
4. ἡμεις] wobis. 
nov] uestrum, 
6. εαν] quodsi. 
7. avtos| et zpse. 
καθαριζει) purgabit. 
Τησου] + Xpictov = Vg. 
8. οὐκ ἐστιν] post nuw=V¢g. 
9. ἐστιν] om. 
απο] ex. 
to. εαν] quod si: si Vg. 
ποιουμεν] faciemus. 
II. 2. tAacpos] post ecrw= Veg. 
4. oT eyvwxa] se noscere: se nosse Vg.: quia cognoni 
Cyp. 
και 2°] om. 
5. os δ᾽ av] nam qui. 
αὐτου] post Aoyov = Vg. 
αληθως] om. 
6. ουτως] om. 
7. evtoAnv]| post καινην. 
evxere| habuistis. 
8. αληθες] uere. 
παραγινεται] iam transeunt : transierunt Vg, 
Io. o| pr. nam. 
13. Tov am apxys| quod erat ab initio. 


N 











ITI. 


14. 
16. 


APPENDIX 


eypawa 1°, 3°] scribo. 
eypaiya υμιν πατερες] Om, 
σαρκος] + és7. 

Buov]+est (uid.), 


οὐκ] pr. guae, 


. αὐτου] om. 
. καὶ 2°] om. 
. εξηλθαν] ? prodiit. 





noav τ] erat. 

noav 25] fuisset. 
μεμενηκεισαν͵] permansisset. 
Phau ένα praesto fiat. 


. ἔχετε] accepistis. 


παντες] omnia. 





. OTL οὐκ οιδατε] guast tgnorantibus. 


αλλ᾽ ott οιδατε] sed (+ quasi Vg.) scientibus. 


. οὐκ εστιν] est. 
. ἐν μιν τ] post μενέτω. 


εαν] quod si. 


. μένει] permaneat: maneat Vg. 
. eay| cum. 


φανφωθη] uenerit: apparuerit Vg. 
σχωμεν] post παρρησιαν. 


. Were] ecce. 


217 


ov γινώσκει nuwas| nos inhonorat (Ber.): nos egnorat 


(Buch.). 


OT t—avrov | om. 


. Te] qui. 


cav | cum. 


avtw| post εσομεθα. 


. ἐπ αυτω] in €0. 





exevos | et tlle. 


. καθως---εκεινος] om. 

. ὁ 1°|+autem. 

. εν τουτω] ex hoc 4: 7” hoch Vg. Aug. 
. αὐτη---αγγελια] hoc est mandatum ἢ q. 
. εκ] ΡΥ. gud q. 

5 μη] pr. et. 





vpas] nos ἢ 4. 


. ἐγνωκαμεν] Cognoscimus. 

- χρειαν exovra] egere ἢ q; necessitatem habere Vg. 
. Aoyw] tantum uerbo h (uerba) q. 

. ev] pr. et. 


γνωσομεθα] cognoscimus h: cognoscimur q. 


218 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


syed suademus q: suadebimus ἢ Vg. 
20. ἡ καρδια] cor nostrum h q. 
ort 2°] om. h q Vg. 
21. ἢ καρδια μη] cor nostrum non 7105. 
22. λαμβανομεν] accipiemus. 
23. ἐντολὴν] post ἡμιν. 
24. τας εντολας] mandatum. 
ἡμιν] post εδωκεν = Vg. 
IV. 2. ev τουτω] hine. 
γινωσκετε] cognoscitur. 
eAn\vlora] uenisse. 
3. μὴ oporoyer] non confitetur: soluit Vg. 
epxera | uenturus est. 
4. 0 2°—xoopw] his qui in saeculo est. 
5. αὐτοι] hil. 
αὐτων] post ακουει. 
6. axover 2°] post ἡμων 2°. 
7. ayarav|+fratrem suum = De rebapt. 
8. οὐκ fie ignorat. 
10. tAacpov]| propitiatorem. 
αλληλους] post ἀγαπαν. 
12. πωποτε] post τεθεαται-- Veg. 
εν μιν] post εστιν. 
14. τον υἱον] filium suum. 
17. μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] in nobis. 
xopev| habemus. 
19. mpwros] prior. 
20. οτι] om. 
ewpaxev (bis)] widet, 
οὐ] guomodo. 
21. απ αὐτου] a deo. 
V. 2. εν τουτω] hine. 
tov Geov| post ἀγαπωμεν 2°. 
3. yap] post ἐστιν = Vg. 
του θεου] om. 
. ἡ νικησασα] guae uinctt. 
. ἐστιν] + autem. 
. ovk] pr. et. 
εν TW υδατι] post μονον. 
TO μαρτυρουν] testimonium., 
7. paptupovrtes|+ in terra. 
aia]+et tres sunt qui testificantur in caelo pater et 
uerbum et sps 568. 
ot τρεις] hi tres. 








Nm «ἃ. 


APPENDIX 219 


εἰς To εν] unum. 
IO. μαρτυριαν 1°|+ di. 
TW θεω] in do: filio Vg. 
μαρτυριαν 2 a + elus. 
11. ὁ Geos] post ημιν = Vg. 
12. Tov voy 1°|+ di. 
13. eypawa] ὃ scribo. 
14. οτι eav τι] quia quidquid : quia quodcunque Vg. 
16. 7 sett. 
αμαρτανοντα] peccare. 
ἐστιν] +enim. 
17. ov] om.= Vg. 
18. ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου] natiuitas di: generatio Dei Vg. 
19. 0 κοσμος] post ολος. 
20. οἰδαμεν δε] et scimus: scimus Vg. 
tov αληθινον] quod est uerum: uerum Deum Vg. 
ἐσμεν] Simus. 
ev τω vw | filio, 











In the above collation the Greek has been underlined when 
the Latin supports a Greek reading which differs from that 
contained in Nestle’s text. The differences between the Old 
Latin and Vulgate have also been marked. When the Old 
Latin agrees with the Vulgate the rendering has been printed in 
Italics, or the agreement has been noted by the symbol “= Vg.” ; 
when the Vulgate differs from both the Greek and the Old Latin 
its rendering has been added; in all other cases the Vulgate 
agrees with the Greek against the Old Latin. For the “ Vulgate,” 
Nestle’s printed text has been used. The amount of help to be 
obtained from the Old Latin in determining the Greek text is 
not great. There are, of course, but few passages in which 
there is serious doubt as to the true reading. But the collation 
brings out at least one interesting fact, in the number of instances 
where Greek variants are not involved, but where the Vulgate 
agrees with the Greek against the Old Latin. This shows the 
extent to which the Vulgate has revised a not very accurate 
translation into far closer conformity with the Greek text. The 
facts are of some interest in connection with the tendency which 
is clearly marked in the Old Latin to add interpretative glosses. 
In two passages the textual evidence of the Old Latin is of 
special interest. In iv. 3 the reading “non confitetur” supports 
the view which is suggested by the evidence of Cyprian and 
Tertullian that the original reading in Greek has μὴ ὁμολογεῖ 
and that the λύει (represented by the Vulgate “soluit” and 
apparently known to Tertullian) came into the Latin text as an 


220 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


interpretative gloss. In the more famous passage v. 7, 8 the 
Old Latin gives us the gloss in its earlier form in which the 
earthly witnesses precede the heavenly, as in the text of 
Priscillian, whose quotation of the passage is the earliest known 
evidence for the insertion. It is unfortunate that in both these 
verses we are dependent for our Old Latin text on Ziegler’s 
Freisingen Fragments, and have not the help of the Fleury 
Palimpsest, which, though not pure African, undoubtedly 
approaches nearer to the earlier forms of the Old Latin text. 

In the case of the two shorter Epistles we have no help from 
MSS, except the last few verses (11d-end) of the Third Epistle, 
which are extant in the Latin (only) of Codex Bezae, where they 
are found between the Fourth Gospel and the Acts, a position 
which perhaps suggests, as has been pointed out, that in this MS 
the Johannine Epistles were treated as an appendix to the Gospel. 

It has therefore been possible to reproduce only the quota- 
tions of the Epistles which follow the Old Latin text or at 
least afford information about it. The words in these quotations 
which do not agree with the Vulgate have been printed in 
Clarendon type, in order to show how far the citations yield Old 
Latin evidence. A few have been added which are not con- 
tained in the Volumes already published in the Vienna Corpus. 
In their case the reference to Migne has been given with the 
number of the volume in his edition of the Father quoted. It 
may be worth while to tabulate the following renderings, in 
addition to those already given, which they attest : 


OnE: Vulgate. 
ἀπολαμβάνειν recipere (Luc.) accipere. 
ἐθνικός gentilis (Hier.) gens. 
ἐνώπιον coram (1) in conspectu. 
ἔργον factum (Cyp.) opus (Luc.). 
καθώς sicut (Luc.) quemadmodum. 

quasi (Aug.) 
λαμβάνειν admittere (Cyp.) recipere. 
accipere (Luc.) 
πλάνος fallax (Luc. Spec.) seductor. 
προπέμπειν praemittere (Hier.) deducere. 
ὡς sicut (Luc.) tanquam. 


So far as it goes this evidence supports that which has been 
collected in connection with the First Epistle. The Bezan 
fragment, which has been collated with the Vulgate and also 
with the Greek (Nestle’s text has been used in both cases) 
again shows the usual Vulgate accommodation to the Greek, but 
suggests a Greek text further removed from that which Jerome 
made the basis of his Vulgate. 


APPENDIX 221 


The Sfecu/um quotation of 2 Jn. 11 affords another instance 
of the addition of glosses. The words (ecce praedixi uobis ne 
in diem domini condemnemini) are found in some MSS of the 
Vulgate. 

The text of the Perpignan MS in the two minor Epistles is 
mainly Vulgate. The following readings may, however, be noted : 

2 Jn. 4 gauisus] pr. Karissimi | 7 prodierunt | 8 custodite ne 
perdatis | estis]+in Dno | 9 doctrina]+eius | 12 per chartam 
et atramentum] per atramentum et in epistola | futurum]| 
uenturum | electae] + ecclesie 3 Jn. 2|egit | 4 gratiam|] 
gaudium | 6 benefacis deducens | profecti sunt] peregrinantur | 
huiusmodi]+ participes | 14 te uisurum (cf. d) | saluta tu amicos 
nominatos. 

2 Jn. το, 11—Cypr. Sent. Episc. 81. “Si quis ad uos! 
uenit et doctrinam Christi non habet, nolite eum admittere in 
domum uestram et aue? illi ne dixeritis ? qui enim dixerit 5 illi 
aue 2 communicat factis eius malis.” 

1 605 Α. 2 haue SL habe T}. 
3 dixeris 5, 4 om. qui enim dixerit 5. 

2 Jn. 7-8—TIrenaeus, 1. xvi. 8 (ed. Stieren). ‘ Multi 
seductores exierunt in hune mundum qui non confitentur Iesum 
Christum in carne uenisse. Hic est seductor et Antichristus.” 

2 Jn. τι. “Qui enim dicit eis Aue communicat operibus 
ipsorum nequissimis.” 

2 Jn. 7—Priscillian, p. 30. “Qui non confitentur Christum 
Iesum in carne uenisse, hi sunt seductores et antichristi.” 

2 Jn. 4-11—Lucifer, p. 28 (ed. Hartel). 4. “ Gauisus sum 
valde quod inueni de filiis tuis ambulantes in ueritati sicuti 
mandatum accepimus a patre. 

5. “Oro te, domina, non sicut mandatum nouum scribens 
tibi, sed quod habuimus ab initio, ut diligamus nos alterutrum ; 

6. “et haec est caritas ut ambulemus secundum mandata eius. 
hoc est mandatum sicut audistis ab initio ut in eo ambuletis. 

7. “quoniam multi fallaces progressi sunt in saeculo! qui 
non confitentur Iesum Christum uenisse in carnem ; isti sunt 
fallaces et antichristi. 

1 seclo. 


8. “uidete eos, ne perdatis quod operati estis, sed ut mercedem 
plenam recipiatis. 

9. “omnis qui recedit et non manet in doctrina Christi 
deum non habet; qui autem manet in doctrina eius ille et 
patrem et filium habet. 

et 1°—christo] a doctrina eius Luc. 1/5. 


ro, “si quis uenerit ad nos et hanc doctrinam non adfert, 
nolite accipere eum in domum et aue nolite dicere ei; 


222 THE EPISTLES OF 5. JOHN 


11. “qui enim dicit ei aue communicat operibus eius malignis.” 

2 Jn. 7—ad Petrum Fullonen. Ep. Imp. p. 198. “ Multi 
exierunt in mundum seductores, qui non confitentur Christum 
Iesum in carne uenisse.” 

2 Jn. 7—Gelasius 1. ad Ep. Dardaniae. Ep. 79, p. 221. 
* Qui negat Christum in carne uenisse hic est antichristus.” 

2 Jn. 3—Augustine, ad Rom. c. 12 (Migne, ili. 2096). “ Sit 
uobiscum gratia misericordia pax a Deo Patre et Jesu Christo 
Filio Patris.” 

2 Jn. 5—Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 35 (Migne, 
x. 903). “‘Non quasi praeceptum nouum scribam tibi sed 
quod habuimus ab initio ut diligamus inuicem.” 

Jn. 1—Augustine, ad Rom. c. 12 (Migne, iii. 2096). 
“Senior Gaio dilectissimo quem ego diligo in ueritate.” 

3 Jn. 5-7—Jerome, Zz Zitum, Lib. i. 701 (Migne, vii. 568). 
“‘ Charissime fideliter facis quodcumque operaris in fratribus et 
hoc peregrinis qui testimonium dederunt dilectioni tuae coram 
ecclesia quos optime facies si praemiseris Deo digne pro 
nomine enim Domini exierunt nihil accipientes a gentilibus.” 

2 Jn. 7—Spec. 315, 6, ed. Weihrich. 7. “Quoniam multi 
fallaces! prodierunt in hune mundum, qui non confitentur 
iesum christum dominum nostrum? in carne® uenisse hii4 
fallaces et antichristi® sunt.” 


1 fallaces S. 3 dnm nrm ihm xspm MV LC, 
8 om. in carne C. 4hi L. 
5 antecris | tii S anticristi V. 


2 Jn. 10, 11—Spec. 517, 4. To. “Si quis uenit ad uos et hanc 
doctrinam non adfert, nolite eum recipere in domum! et aue? ne 
dixeritis 61.3 

11. “qui enim dicit illi aue* communicat operibus eius 
malignis. ecce praedixi uobis ne in diem® domini con- 
demnemini.® ” 


3 Jn. 44-end. 
lin domo M. 2 habe 5 ΜΙ aue M?LC, 
8 illi ne dixeritis MLC. habe S abe M4. 
§diem SMLC. 6 condempnemini M C, 


Copex ΒΕΖΑΕ (f. 415). 


qui malefacit non uidit dm 
demetrio testimonium exhibetur ab omnibus 
et ab ipsa ueritate 
et nos uero testimonium perhibemus 
5 et scis testimonium nostrum uerum est 
plura habui scribere tibi 


EEO 


APPENDIX 223 


sed nolo per atramentum 

et calamum scribere tibi 

spero enim protinus te uisurum 
10 et os ad os locuturum pax tecum 
Salutant te amici tui 

saluta amicos nomatim. 


EPIsTULAE Iouanis III. 


Explicit 
ancipit 
Actus Apostolerum. 
2. exhibetur] redditur Vg. 12. μεμαρτυρηται] testimo- 
nium exhibetur. 

4. et nos uero] sed et nos Vg. ort] om. 

5. scis] nosti quoniam Vg. 13. πολλα] plura. 

6. plura] multa Vg. σοι 29] post γραφειν. 

7. nolo] nolui Vg. 14. de] enim. 

9. enim] autem Vg. λαλησομεν |locuturum 

uisurum |] uidere Vg. 15. σοι] tecum. 

το. locuturum] loquemur Vg. ou φιλοι] amici tui. 


tecum] tibi Vg. 
Ir. tui] om. Vg. 





INDICES. 


ee 


4. GENERAL. 


B. AUTHORS AND WORKS. 


C. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
D. WORDS USED IN THE EPISTLES. 
£. WORDS USED IN GOSPEL BUT NOT IN EPISTLES. 


oman figures refer to the Introduction. 


A. GENERAL. 


ABSOLUTE statements, writer’s use of, 


53: 

Anointing, 55. 
Antichrist, 49 ff., 59, 60 ff. 
Antinomianism, 1 f., 84. 
Antiochus IV., 73. 
Aorist, Epistolary, 42, 179. 

meaning of, 82, 131. 
Apodosis, introduced by καί, 63. 
Article, absence of, 51. 

use of double, 6. 
Assurance, xxviii., 98, 121, 141. 
Atonement, Day of, 28. 


Babylonian Myth, 69 ff. 

Barkochba, xviii. 

Belief, 103. 

Blood, meaning of, in Jewish thought, 


τη: 
Brotherhood, author’s conception of, 
39; 94. 


Cain, interpretation of history of, 
92. 

Chiliasm, lxxv ff. 

Christology of Epistles, xvi, xx, 8. 

Commandment, Old and New, mean- 
ing of, 33 ff. 


15 


Demas, |xxxiii. 

Demetrius, lxxxiif., 192 f. 

Demonstrative, use of, for emphasis, 
vi. 

Diotrephes, Ixxxii, 187 f. 

Docetism, xliv ff., Ixxvi. 


Eschatology, xvili, xxi, 37, 51. 
Ethical teaching of opponents, 1, 
Eye-witnesses, 2. 


False Teachers, the, xxxviii ff., 58 f. 
Fellowship, 8, 15, 104, 120. 

First person plural, use in these 
Epistles, 9, 13, 93, 122, 193. 
Forgiveness, meaning of ἄφεσις in 

ING ly 20: 


Genitive, after substantives, 5. 
Glosses, 49, 138, 179. 
Gnosticism, xxvilif., 29, 31 f., 83, 85. 
Gospel and Epistles— 
Common types of sentences, v. 
Differences in minor points, xi. 
External attestation, xxii. 
Ideas common to both, viii f. 
Limitations of Vocabulary, vii. 
‘ Originality’ of Author, x, xxiii. 


226 


Gospel and Epistles— 

Parallels in Epistles to the Last 
Discourses, xxiv. 

Peculiarities of Epistles, xiii. 

Phrases Common to both, i ff. 

References in Epistles to Gospel, 
xxiv ff. 

Similarity and differences of style, 
V, XXIl. 


Heavenly Witnesses, the history of 
the Gloss, 154 ff. 

Hospitality, duty of, Ixxix, Ixxxi, 
178, 184. 


Intercession, 145, 147. 
Itacism, 108. 


Judaism, xli ff. 
Knowledge, meaning in S. John, 29. 


Love, teaching of Epistle on, 117 ff., 
122, 125. 


Monarchian tendencies in Epistles, 
XVi, xix. 

Monarchical Episcopate, development 
of, Ixxxvill. 


Marduk, 70 ff. 

Name, meaning of, in Jewish thought, 
44. 

Nominative absolute, use of, 60, 62. 


Organization of Asiatic Churches, 
Ixxxix f, 


B. AUTHORS 


Addai, Doctrine of, lix. 

Apocalypse, use of Antichrist Legend, 
771. 

Athanasius, Ixii. 

Augustine, xxx, lxi, 3, 27, 43, 86, 
113: 156. 


Babut, 160. 

Bacon, lii. 

Bartlet, Ixxxiii, Ixxxv, 172, 182. 
Baruch, Apocalypse of, 75. 
Basilides, xliii. 

Bede, 88f., 133. 

Bengel, 33. 


INDICES 


Paraclete, xx ff., 23 ff. 

Parenthesis, 6, 80. 

Parousia, 37, 66, 81. 

Polemical aim of Epistles, xxvii, 
XXxviii ff. 

Prayer, teaching on, 102, 144. 

Propitiation, xviii, xxi, 28, 119. 


Relative, infrequent use of, v. 
Repetition, writer’s fondness for, 
0. 


Second and Third Epistles— 
Relation to the First, Ixxiv ff. ; his- 
torical background of, Ixxxiv ff. 
Second Epistle— 
Circumstances under which written, 
Ixxix. 
Comparison with 
Ixxx. 
Destination, Ixxx. 
Sin, meaning of ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν in 
Gospel and Epistle, 17. 
universality of, 22. 
Sin unto death, 145 ff. 


the Didache, 


Third Epistle— 
Circumstances under which written, 
Ixxxi. 
Relation to the Second, 1xxxiii, 
187 f. 
Tiamat, 60 ff. 
Titles of Christ, 8, 16, 27, 58, 105, 
121. 175. 


World, the, meaning of, in S. John 
47, 92f., 107. 


AND WORKS. 


Berger, 156ff., 197 ff. 
Bousset, 69. 

Briggs, 3, 44. 
Buchanan, 1097 ff. 
Burkitt, Ixi. 


Caius of Corinth, Ixxxi, Ixxxiv. 
Carpocrates, xlvi ff. 

Cassiodorus, xxx. 

Cerinthus, xxv, xxxix, xlv ff., Ixxvi, 


Chapman, Dom, lxxxii, Ixxxiv, 169, 
172, 181, 185. 
Chrysostom, 25. 


AUTHORS AND WORKS 


Clemen, xxxix, xlii, 2, 59. 

Clement of Alexandria, xxxif., lvi, 
ἸΣΉ Ves 159,100: 

Clement of Rome, lii. 

Coenen, 181. 

Cyprian, lix, 155. 


Daniel, Book of, 73, 75. 
Deissmann, 27, 66, 151, 183, 195. 
Didache, liv, Ixxx, 107, 186. 
Diognetus, liv. 

Dittenberger, 67. 


Ebrard, xxv. 

Enoch, Book of, 27, 36, 74. 
Epiphanius, xliii, xlvi ff. 
Eusebius, lixf. 

Ezra, Fourth Book of, 75. 


Findlay, 3, 12, 55, 100. 
Fulgentius, 161. 


Gaius, 181. 
von der Goltz, 111 ff. 
Gunkel, 69 ff. 


Hiring, xxxiv ff. 

Harnack, Ixxxviiff., 182. 

Hermas, liv. 

Hilgenfeld, xlviii. 

Hippolytus, xlvi ff. 

Holtzmann, i, xix, xxix, 118, 153, 
168, 176. 

Hort, xxxviif. 

Huther, xxix, 193. 


Ignatius, xlv. 
Irengeus, xlili, xlv ff., lv, lix, 3,111. 


Jerome, lxi, 169. 
Jiilicher, Ixxvi, Ixxxi, 164. 
Justin, lv, 81, 89. 


Karl, 3, 42f., 89. 
Knopf, xlvi. 
Kiinstle, 155 ff. 


Law, xxxvif., 17, 42, 128. 
Lietzmann, Ixi. 

Lightfoot, xviii, xxii, xxv. 
Lipsius, xlviii f. 

Liicke, xxviii, xxxii, 168. 
Lyons and Vienne, Letter, lv. 


Mommsen’s Canon, lix. 
Muratorian Fragment, lvii, 


227 


Oecumenius, 115, 193. 
Origen 1011}. [1 ΙΧ, 5. 35, 12; 
181. 


Papias, tiv, Ixxv, Ixxvii, 192. 

Paul, S. Eschatological Teaching, 
76f. 

Peshitta, lix, ΙΧ]. 

Pfleiderer, xliii, Ixxv. 

Philaster, xlvi. 

Photius, Ix. 

Pirge Aboth, 80, 

Poggel, 191. 

Polycarp, xliv, lii, Ixxv. 

Priscillian, 158. 


Rendel Harris, Ixxxvi, 
167, 176. 

Réville, xx, Ixxvii. 

Ronsch, 26. 

Rothe, xxix, I, 44, 88, 139. 


155, 165, 


Sabatier, 1xi. 

Sanday, xxvii. 

Schlatter, 30, 40, 45, 92, 95. 
Schmiedel, xliv, 30. 
Schottgen, 148. 

Schwartz, xxii, Ixxvi. 
Sibylline Books, 74. 
Socrates, 113. 

von Soden, xxxii, lxiv, 60, 198. 
Solomon, Psalms of, 75. 
Spitta, 96. 


Tacitus, 3. 

Talmud (see Schlatter), 25. 
Tertullian, lvii, 113, 133. 
ps-Tertullian, xlvi. 
Thoma, Ixxxvi. 


Weiss, B., li, 8, 83, 86. 
Wellhausen, xxvi. 
Westcott, xxxviif., 23, 

165. 
Wettstein, 23, 47, 176, 184. 
Wilamowitz, Ixxxii, 183, 192. 
Windisch, 3, 89f., 177. 
Wohlenberg, 89, 100, 149. 
Wurm, xxxix, xlii, 1, 36, 59, 114. 


88, 113, 


Zahn, xxxf., xlvi, lx, Ixxiii, 7, 112, 
168, 193. 

Ziegler, 164, 197 ff. 

Zimmern, 27. 


228 


INDICES 


C. GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES EXPLAINED. 


ἀγαθοποιεῖν, 191. 
ἀγαπητοί, 34, 81, 117. 
ἀγγελία, 11, OI, 
ἅγιος, ὁ, 56. 

ἁγνίζειν, 84. 

ἁγνός, 84. 

ἀδελφός, 38, 90. 
αἴρειν, 85. 
αἰσχύνεσθαι, 66. 
αἰτεῖν, 147. 

αἰώνιος, 6. 

ἀλήθεια, 19, 170. 
ἀληθινός, 151. 
ἁμαρτίαν ἕχειν, 17. 
ἀρχή, 2, 34, 45: 60, 88, 91. 
ἀσπάζεσθαι, 195. 
ἀφιέναι, 20. 


βαρύς, 130. 
βίος, 97. 


γεννᾶσθαι, 68 [., 148. 


γράφω, ἔγραψα, 41 ff., 46, 142, 187. 


διδαχή, 177. 
δοκιμάζειν, 107. 


ἐάν, c. indic., 144. 
εἶναι ἐκ, 115. 
ἐκεῖνος, iv, 33, 84f., 87, 124. 
ἐκλεκτή, Ιχχχ, 180. 
ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ, 167. 
ἐλθών, ὁ, 132, 134. 
ἐντολὴν λαβεῖν, 172. 
ἐπιδέχεσθαι, 189 f. 
ἔρχεσθαι, 178. 
ἐρωτᾶν, 147, 173. 
εὐοδοῦσθαι, 182. 


θαυμάζειν, 93. 
θεᾶσθαι, 4. 


ἱλασμός, 119. 

ἵνα, definitive, 19, 80, 124, 130. 
elliptic, vii, 54. 
c. indic., 150. 


καθαρίζειν, 16, 21. 
ret 6 oc 
καὶ νῦν, 64. 
κατ᾽ ὄνομα, 195. 
κοινωνεῖν, 8. 
κόλασιν ἔχειν, 125. 
κόσμος, 47. 

Κυρία, Ιχχχ, 167. 


3 . 


λαμβάνειν, 178. 
λόγος, 35. 

λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, 1, 5. 
λύειν, 89, 111 ff. 


μαρτυρεῖν, 135, 1386 

μένειν, 33, 39, 53, 61, 64, 86, 123. 
μισεῖν, 38. 

μονογενής, 110. 


ὁμολογεῖν, 108, 121. 
ὅστις, 7. 
οὗτος, 31, 134, 152, 178. 
ἐκ τούτου, ττό. 
ἐν τούτῳ, 9, ΤΟΟ, etc. 


παιδία, 43. 
πάλιν, 36. 
mas, 16, 21, 83f. 
ce negat., 54; 57, 94. 
c. partic., vi. 
παρρησία, 65, 102. 
πείθειν, 99. 
περιπατεῖν, 13f., 174, 183. 
πιστεύειν, 104 f., 128. 
πλανᾶν, 18, 
πλάνος, 175. 
ποιεῖν, τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 14. 
καλῶς ποιεῖν, 185. 
πιστὸν ποιεῖν, 182. 
ποταπός, 80. 
πρεσβύτερος, ὁ, τ66. 
πρός, 7. 


σάρξ, " 48. 
ἐν σαρκὶ ἐλθεῖν, 109, 175- 
σκάνδαλον, 39. 
σκοτία, 12. 
σκότος, 14. 


σπλάγχνα, 97. 
συνεργός, 187. 


τεκνία, 43, 87. 
τηρεῖν, 30. 


φανεροῦν, 65, 82, 85. 
φιλοπρωτεύειν, 188, 
φλυαρεῖν, 190. 

φῶς, 11. 


ψηλαφᾶν, 4. 
ψυχὴν τιθέναι, 95 f. 


χρίσμα, 55. 
ὥρα. 51. 


GREEK WORDS USED IN THE EPISTLES 


229 


D. GREEK WORDS USED IN THE EPISTLES. 


The figure in brackets after each word gives the number of times the word 


is used in the Johannine Epistles. 


The figure after each capital gives the 


number of times the word is used in the Book or Group of Books represented 


by the Capital. 
J=Gospel according to John, M= 


Matthew and Mark, L=Luke, A= 


Acts, P=Pauline Epistles (excluding the Pastoral Epistles), Pa= Pastoral 


Epistles, H=Hebrews, C=Catholic Epistles (excluding 1-3 John), 


Apocalypse. 


ἀγαθοποιέω (1) M! L§ C?: III. 11. 

ἀγαθός (1) 73 M1® LY A’ PX Pal? HS 
Ce TIO I iti 

ἀγαπάω (31) [Pe MES ΤΑ ΕΞ ὙΡΑΣΕΕΙΣ 

—~CPR?: I. ii. 10, 15 (425), iii. τὸ, 
II, 14 " (45), 15: 235) ἵν ἢ (325), 
8, 10 (42s), 11 (35); 12, 19 (625), 
20 (ter), 21 (d2s), v. 1 (d2s), 2 
ie ΤΥ 5 fi 

ἀγάπη (21) 17 ML ἊΝ ἘΠῚ ΠΟΥ: 

τ ΤΙΝ Το. 15 ΤΆ ΤΟ 7 Ver ἢ» 
8, 9, 10, 12, 16 (fer), 17, 18 (467), 

ie Sh WU 2 6. INE 

ἀγαπητός (10) "MS L3 Αἱ P% Pa? 
BE (CHG Tn a GA 11 2: ee hs be 
Fo itis IDI Tee Ee bat 

ἀγγελία (2): Hos Mss ub 01: 

ἅγιος (1) J® M27 [20 A54 p> Pads Η!8 


CR 1 20. 
e ayrita(t) > A2C*: ΤΟ ai. 3: 
» ἁγνός (1) P? Pa? ΟΞ: 1. iii. 


5. 
Σ αἰσχύνομαι (it) L} P2C!; 


3: 
ἀδελφή (1) 76 Μϑ L® A! P> Pal Cl; 
ΤΙ. 


ον ἢ ( (38) eer EAS) pies pas 
WO (Ce Math, Ὁ; ΤΟΣ Mie 11. 10, 

ΕΞ {2:5}, 15. 1. 155 16, 17, iv. 

20᾽ {225}. 20a, 10; IIL. BAS. 


10. 

ἀϑικίω (2,1. 1... ΑΞ Pe Pal re Cea i 
129; Vel 17s 

αἷμα (4) 15 MS L8 AM pe ΗΣΙ C2 
TRAN) ee Gs Ss (2) tok 

aipw (1) J> ΜΡ L® A® P4 R?2; 


Ἐ 1 9281 

αἰπέω (5) 1 ΜΈ Te VA Ps, Co 
iii. 22, v. 14, 15 (25), 16. 

αὐπησα (τ lt PA: ΤΕ ν᾿ τ: 

alwy (2) M18 L? ΣΡ Pad 8 Cé 
ἘΠΕ τὴ 11 2: 

αἰώχιος (6) J? M® L4 A? ἘΠῚ Pa ΗΘ 
ΟΥ̓ 1 2713 2 5.11 τὴν 
ΣΙ, 13, 20; 


1G τ; 







ἘΞ 


ἀκούω a) ΤΑ BN 2 
CO RAS Ted τ 63, Sj ie Ἵ 
τς, 24) (dz), 111. 1, ἵν. 2, 
(42s), v. 14, 15, ΠῚ 6. ΤΙ|1 Pie 
Κάλα ζονία (1) Cl: I. 11. τό. 
ἀλήθεια (20) J* M* L? A® ρος p24 At 
CoD. 1 6; 5: 1s 4,21 (2s) e ati. 
18, 10, iv. 6, V2 6. ΠῚ 1 (025): 2 
3, 4, IIL. 1, 3 (de), 4, 8, 12. 
ἀληθής (5)}. GID Zk Tee bees 50} 
1: 8. 2). 111:12: 
ἀληθινός (3) 151. P? H? 10: I. ii, 8, 
v. 20 (dz). 
:ἀληθῶς (1) 17 M> L3 A! Pl; 
ἀλλά (20). 
ἀλλὰ καὶ (2) J? M? L$ A4 p26 pas 
ἘΠ᾿ ΟΣ ites GZ LI Ὶ: 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ (2) 15. M4 L? A? P® Pa? H?: 
Τοῦ LOM UL 17. 
ἀλλήλων (7) [15 M? LY ΑΒ P?? Pal HI 
(COIR RUE th 95 τ ΤῊ’ 252. oe ἢ: 
Wits Vee JOG 
ἁμαρτάνω (10) ye Mas AVAL P Pas 
ἘΠ Ξ: GM Esha toby τ 27 :ὴν site(s 
(42s), 8, 9, ν. 16 (625), 18. 
ἁμαρτία (16) 0)?" Mae ΤᾺ ΑΒ Pst Pas 
ἘΠ CaP 1 1 7195 91025) 11 
2, 12: iil. Δ (25). αὶ (25). 8: 10; 
iv. τὸ, v. 16 (42s), 17. 
ἄν (5) Tied Mé3 1,38 Als p2 Hé ΒΞ; 11: 
Ti 5. HIG ath 17: 2Ζ oi LL 
ἀναγγέλλω (1) 15 ΜΙ A® ΡΖ ΟἹ: 


1: γ: Ὁ. 


{τὸς 


5: 

«ἀνθρωποκτόνος (2) J}: I. iii. 15 (62). 

ἄνθρωπος (1) 159 Mu3+53 1 85 Ass plos 
[pet JRE) (CRY Rese IE, ν Cee 

dvoula (2) M4 P® Pal H?: 
(325). 

dvrlxpioros (5) I. ii. 18 (425), 22, 
ἵν 2% 1Ὲ 

ἀξίως (1) IIL. 

νἀπαγγέλλω (2) ji Mi ΤΑ Ale Pp? ils 
Ε 2.3 


I. iii. 4 


230 


ἀπολαμβάνω (1) M! L? P®: IT. 8. 
amédrvuue (1) J? M? L28 Az Pl? Hl 
ΘΠ 5: 
ἀποστέλλω (3) J ΜΉ 1,2 A% Ps Pal 
ἘΠ ΘΙ ΕΘ ἀν 0. ΤΌΣ iy! 
ἅπτομαι (1) J} M*? ΤῚΣ Al Ps: Ἢ ν. 18. 
, ἀρεστός (1) 1} A?: I. iii. 22. 
dpxéw (1) J? M? LL? P! Pa’ A: TIT. 
Io 
/ ἀρνέομαι (3,1 ΜΡ AS Pal ria 
Revi 22) (2) 27. : 
+ ἄρτι (1 ) pz Vee Re: IE sb): 
ἀρχή (10) “δ M® L? A* Pl! Pal Hé C? 
IRM Tres £65 11: 7, 13, 14, 24 (ὀ25), 
111. 8; Τῇ, II. 5,6 
aométopae (3): IL. 13, 111. 15 (22s). 
αὐτός (10) yet 
αὐτοῦ (61). 
αὐτῆς (1). 
αὐτῷ (24). 
αὐτῇ (1). 
αὐτόν (12). 
αὐτήν (1). 
αὐτοί (1). 
αὐτῶν (2). 
αὐτούς (1). 
αὐτός δ 1110 Μ΄ 1... AS) Ρ τ Re: 
1Π1: 12. 
αὐτοῦ (τὴ J* M? L4 A? P4 R?: I. v. τὸ: 
de (2)n ME LAS 5 isc! 
a Oho 1 6 


BaXNe (17 Mo! LY A5 CR: 1, 
iv. 18. 

βαρύς (1) Μ΄ A? P!: I. v. 3. 

ε Silos (2) Me Pate. ai 16; Π1 τῇ- 

βλέπω (1) J? ΜῸ Τὴ ΑἹ P23 Ἢ Οἱ 

ἘΠῚ 11: 8: 

βούλομαι es Ἱ M® L? Al Ρῦ pas FI 
(05: 


Tdios (1) A? P?: 

γάρ (6) JO: 1, it 3 
ΠῚ aise UNL gt Yee 

vende, (10) ΤΠ ΤΑ Pe Pat 


WS αν 
19, iv. 20, v. 


ae Gh 753 M@B+55 [182 Ald p17 
Par eter ie 5. 1: 
12. ἘΠῚ 9; 

δώσει ἐπ hi M3 [28 Al6 p45 pgs 

eae on M3 L2 AS ΡΒ CORS: 
iii. 18. 

tics (18) Tee 10 ae A® a Pat 

Cork? ΤΥ: . 4; ii. dis 8, 

a Tees, a (δ), δι "26, ν. 
13. ἘΠῚ ΚΡ 12. ΠῚ es ine? (625). 


INDICES 


Δημήτριος (1) ΑΞ: TIT. 12. 

διά, ὁ. gen. (4) 5 Mes Τὴ ἈΡ pie 
Βα ΟΣ ΕΞ νον αἱ 
ΤΠ Ἴ2, WUE το, Ce prac. 1.5 
M5 1,8 Al9 rs Pa® Hi? C8 RI. 
τ 11: 12. 1, Ἃ, ivi π᾿ ΠΝ ΠῚ 


»διάβολο: (4) 75 M® L? Az Pa Pat ΗΝ 
C? R$: I. iii. 8 [2225]: 10. 


ἈΝ οὶ (1) M? L? P? H2 (3, 


διδάσκω (3) J? M*? L17 Al6 pl0 pad 2 
R?: I. ii. 27 (ze). 

διδαχή (3) 15 ΜΒ Li A4 P4 Pa? H2 
R®: IL. 9 (42s) 10. 

δίδωμι (7) is M56-+37 [59 A34 p62 Palo 
HC? RSs 7. 1 το aaa, 
13. Weel 16 5 

δίκαιος (5) 13 ‘ve Li AS Pi pate 
ΟΥ̓ Reet) ΟΣ, ΠΕ, 20. ΠΡ ΥΣ, 

δικαιοσύνῃ (3) J? M’ Ll Ad pe’ pad 
H.C? R32 ὙΠ 20, aia 

Διοτρέφης (1): III. 9. 

γδοκιμά ζω (1) L? ΡῚ6 Pal C!: 1. iv. 1. 

δύναμαι (2) [36 M%® 1,36 A p32 Ῥαθ 
ΗΟ ἘΠῚ ΤῈ πὶ: Ὁ. τν 20. 


ἐάν (23) 151 Μ561281,38. ΑἹ p77 Pad HS 
ΟΥ̓ 5:1... δ. 7. ὃ.» ὁ. τοῦ τὶ 
3, 15, 24, 28, 29, iii. 2, 20, 22, 
ive 12) 15; 20, v. 14, 15 (625), 16, 


III. 
ἐὰν μή i ps Syne+6 13 A4 Pl8 pal C2 
11. 21: 
ὑπ (6) (ao ee at A pll0 pal 
HC Re: 1.0.8; Lite ἢ. 15 


(22), v. 21, ii. ᾿ 
ἐγώ (3) ΠΣ M29+17 1,24 A46 p60 Ῥᾳῖ 
i ΟΡ ΤΣ ΤΙ 1 (62s); ΠῚ τ 
μοῦ (1). 
ἡμεῖς (12) 7118 Μ8 LS ΑΞἹ Ῥδθ pa? 
Ho Cl: Li. 4, lit, ΤῊ ΠΟ ἢ 
10, 11, 14, 16; 17, τὸ" {ΠῚ ΟῚ 
12. 
ἡμῶν (25). 
ἡμῖν (18). 
ἡμᾶς (8). 
ἐθνικὸς (1) Μ5: ITI. 7. 
εἰ (5) 151: M%+13 [32 430 p98 pgs Ε714 
on IG ste ΤῸ. 1|. Wiehe Ft, ΤΙ 
εἰ ΓΕ 27 γι M19+17 [16 A2 p28 Pal ΗΙ 
ΠΥ 122. van ss 
εἴτις {1 Μϑ L3 A‘ P42 Pas C7 RS; 
II. 
εἶδον 3) i M58+44 1,68 A49 ΡΠ Po2 
BRS: Te, Ly) ν. 16) ΡΣ 


a 


GREEK WORDS USED IN THE EPISTLES 231 


οἶδα (16) 182 M2+23 126 Al9 p92 Pall 
EC" R®”: I. ii, 11, 20, 21 (425), 
By, ill. 12, 5, TA D5 nove 11. 65 
(42s), 18, 19, 20, III. 12. 
ἡ" εἴδωλον (1) A? ΡΥ R!: I. v. 21. 
(εἰμί) ἐστίν (78). 
ἐσμέν (8) 74 M? L? A® P® HA; I. ii. 
τ τ 2. 6.3. 1} Vell O20; 
ἐστέ (2) J” 1 At P# H2C!; 
Tees ἀν ἐν 
εἰσίν (5) J ve 1.18 ΑἹ p32 pas HS 
AS RET TR τ τος ἵν πὴ ν 2.7. 85: 
7D) AU M2 Lé A! P?8 Pa® C2: li Ἷ 
ue 12 
ΠΤ 1) 13 M™ L23 A2l p42 pal? Η3 
(Ce a li, atk, Gp 
ἤμην (6) 7113 M4+55 199 A86 P30 Pa? 
ΕΠ ΡΟ 15. RSE 1m 2. τς το 925} 
iii. 12 (425). 
ἔσομαι (5). Μ6 1049 A2 p24 pat 7 
CP Res ey πῶ 2 11.9.2 
εἶπον (4) 1293 M8+85 1298 Α 529 pls pal 
OIC RE Ti. Ὁ, 8; τὸ; ἵν: 20: 
ΕΠ. (2) ΠΝ 5: Αἴ P®8 Pat Hi C8 


ἐπαγγελία (1) L) AS P™ Pa? HM 
C2 levine. 

#@m ayyéXNouae (1) ΜΙ A! ΡΞ Pa? H4 

(Ug IE hi ms 

ἐπί, c. dat. (2) 15 M18+17 L%4 A p48 pad 
ΠΟ [eke VES yi la τὴν 10. 

ἐπιδέχομαι (2): III. 9, 

"ἐπιθυμία (3) J} ΜΙ 1. Ps Pat Ca 
I. ii. 16 (42s), 17. 

ἐργάζομαι (2) 177 M® 1,1 AS ple ΗΙ C2 
RY Th Se: 

ἔργον (5) J! M8 1.3 Aw pss Pa H! 
{0 Te vith thy τ ss, ΠῚ tir, 
Tio: 

ἔρχομαι (8) [188 MUst87 1111 A455 pes 
Ba? Ae CAR ἘΠ 1 116: ἐν. 2, 5, 
Wate UL GA 10. INNA 2. 1 0, 

ἐρωτάω (2), i Me Ee ACES len ve 
16, II. 

ἔσχατος (2) } M2 L5 p§ Pal H! CS 
R®: I. ii. 18 (625). 

εὐθέως (1) 13. M2 LS Αϑ PIC! RI; 
Il. 14. 

εὑρίσκω (1) [19 M27+10 1,46 ΑϑΆ pls pa? 








EDD 3, TEN, xe. H#C?R®: IL 4 
els ἘΠ ,εὔχομαι (τ) A? prc 
ἘΠ (ry 735 M59+39 [44 A2l p28 Pas HP | eyw (32) [86 M7+68 [74 Ade piss par 
COR. Τὸν 8. τ τος πον ΘΕ 5. 1: 
ἐκ, ἐξ (35). τ 7. 20, 25. (CHa) 27, 28, ill. 3, 


ἐκβάλλω (1) 15 M%8+18 12 Αὖ pl ΟἹ 
BUI τὸ; 

hares (7) ἐμ NUN TOPE! AN TREY pie 

[ets (COMI REINS Sia (oe uate Ὁ 5. 

16, iv. 17, v. 16. 

ἐκκλη ola (3) M? A P59 pa? Hi? ΟἹ 
IREY C TUNIS δ᾽ 0; τὸ; 

ConeRros (2) J) ΜῈ 1 PS (Pa? ¢* RI: 
Ui ain aes 

COMEOS {τ} AVE TE et Ῥαῦ ΕΠ Ὁ": 119. 

ἐχαίζ 5). Mae apa Lei 
{1 12. 111. 1. 

ἐλ) AEE ΡῈ BID (COs Me πη 5. 

rans (7) EP ΜΈΣ ΘΙ ἘΠ: ΤΠ 7 

éumpooOev (1) }" M18+2 ΤῊ ἈΞ p7 RS; 
LE hth toy 

ἐν (90). 

ἐντολή (18) J2 M® LA Al ΡΙ3 Pa? HA 
ΘΠ we 115, 35) 2. ἢ (cer) 8; lle 
55, (621). 5. ν. ιν Vanes 3 
(2s), ΤΙ. 4, 5, 6 (625). 

évibmuov (2) 7} L* Al’ P8 Pa’ H? Ὁ" 
Rees 11]. 22> 1Π]|. δ: 

το (4) J M45-+39 1,44 A30 ps ΗἨδ 
SB 15 11 ΤΟΣ ἵν ty ING ἢ; 


15. 17 (G25) sn 20a ἵν. 1ό; ΤῊ» 18: 
21, v.10; 2 [2}} a 14, 15, II. 
5,9 9 (625), ΤΠ 2: 17: 
ἕως, pe (τ) Μϑ8 1,5 “An ΒΟΟΣ 
2 1115.9; 


ζάω (1) PS M? L9 A ps Pas Η13 C8 
Ε15-: Τῦῖν: οἱ 

ζωή (13) 151 ΜΙ LS ΑΒ p88 Pas H2 
Gis 115 722.) a 25) Π|: τὴν 
15, v. 11 (075), 12 (d¢s), 13, 16, 
20. 


ἤ (quam) (1) I. iv. 4. 

ἤδη, (2) 71} ΝΠ ΤΣ ἈΞ ΒΘ Pa? Chea 
1. ὃ, 1ν. 52. 

ἥκω (1) 7 IIE Te BENCH RC 

ἡμέρα (1) 131: M4+28 L8? A% pss Pas 
H8 (16 R21; I. iv. 17. 

ἡμέτερος (2) L? A® Pt Pa?: 1. 1, 3, 
1 2: 


angen (5), uy ΜΙ A® Pt Pal He? 
1 <i. 124 (G25); ν- τὸ 


ὦ; ae 
θαυμάζω (1) Me he APG RS: 


ἔξω ape 'ῬΜΙ9 1} An ΕΠ. ΕΒ ἘΞ. Τὶ 
i Tens 


iv, 18. 


232 INDICES 


θεάομαι (3), 16 Μό L$ A® Pl: 1. i. 1, 
iv. 12, 14 

θέλημα (2) pe M7 Lé ae he ῬᾺ3 Ε΄ 
CORT i. αὐὴν 


θέλω (1) 13 mete 1.28 τοὶ Po? Pad 
ΕΟ TRY 12: 

θεός (66) ie per ΤΙΣ Α1 p47 Pa 
Hs ‘Co 886. 5 ii. Ke 14, 
τ 11. ὦ; 3 9 oR, 10 (2s), 
ΤΥ 20. 21; ‘ive 12 (225..3; Α..Ὁ 
(ter), 7 (67), 8 (615), 9 (615), 10, 
II, 12 (675), 15 (d¢s), 16 (quater), 
20 (dz5), 21, v. 1, 2 (d25), 3, 4, 55 
9 122.) 10 (¢er), II, 12, 13, 18 
(dis), 19, 20, (42s), II. 3, 9, III. 
6, τι (425). 

θεωρέω (1) J M? L? A H! R2. 


Ἰησοῦς (14) 7539 M52+82 ΤΑΥ͂ 69 Pe Pa? 

& H® C” ΕΗ: "Ingots 1. 1. 7, ii. 
Peis WA 1, 5: τ δοῦν Χ σὸς 

ΚΤ sh is fat iii. 22 1ν 2a iy) 
δ᾽ 20; 11 2... 

ixacuds (2) I. ii. 2, iv. To. 

ἵνα (25) 1127 M3+58 189 Al? pl79 pas 
ἘΠῚ (CRON Ὁ 1 Ch ith ΤΌ; 
Pap, 25.) sbi 1 δ) 5: hy FY thie % 
ΤΙ By 15 πὸ; 209. OO IS, (6) 
(ter), ΤΠ 2..8. 

ἵνα μή (3) yp Mets. L? A’ P35 Pad H7 

(CUTS otis etal 1 ὃς 

ἡ ας M7 L4 PS Ἠϑ R®: I. ii. 

14. 


καθαρίζξω (2) ΜῈ 1,1 A’ P? Pal H4 
CG ΠῚ 7a0: 

καθίος (13) 15: M' LY Al! pé Pal ΤΙΣ 
GP we 6; TS 27: 1 2.3.7. 
155) 22. ΠΥ ΤΩΣ ΤΙ. 4, 6, ΤΠ]. 5.5 

Καίν (1) ἘΠῚ ΟΣ I ri, 9: 

και ἐς (6) ΜΗ LAs PT eC ἘΣ 
Iiprely ΓΑ 10 ἘΣ 

κακοποιεώ (1) M! L! C?; III. 11. 

κακός {1 5 1 ἈΦ PAD Pas ae? 
ἘΠ τὰς 

κάλαμος (1) M7 LR: III. 13. 

καλέω (1) 15 M® 1.43 Al8 pl Pa? HS 
CUR ὙΠ: 1: 

nN I 3 Mae AS Ps Pat Ηἰ Ct: 


rapa, (i Ne ΜΈ 1,5 A2! pod pa? ἘΠῚ 
I. iii. 19, 20 (42s), 21. 
Mes Oy Bice, (3) YE EUs Ibe AN 
Pio Pald Ηδ Cl’ RG: I. v, 14, 
11. 6, 111. 15. 


καταγινώσκω (2) P!: I. iii. 20, 21. 


19. 

ἐκλείω (1) J? M® L? A? RE: 

ἐκοινωνία (4) Al Pp} H!; 
6, 7. 

badhaces (1) ΜΙ: 


κεῖμαι (1) J? M? LS P4 Pal R23: Τ᾿ ν. 


Tava: 
κοινωνέω (1) P4 Pal H! ΟἹ: IL, 11. 
dicen 


[iver tee 
κόσμος (3) J M2 L3 ΑἹ p48 Pas HE 
ΡΤ y i ean hd.) ἘΝ (ds), 16 
ee 17, ili, 1, 13, 17, iv. 1, 3, 
5 (ter) 9, 14, 17, v. 4 (205), 5, 


τ 7 
sa A (1) leas M2? 14 Al Pane! 
“ἥν 7: 
Kupia (2): LUG 5 5 
κωλύω (1) M4 L® AS Ρὃ Pal ΗἸ Cl; 
III. το. 


λαλέω (3) J M%+21 [31 A6l pos pgs 
H* © RY: I. iv. 5, ΠῚ eee 


14. 

λαμβάνω (6) J# Has: ΓᾺΡ Β6 ῬῊΞ 
ΕΠ 9. 55: NE αὶ: 27. hh, oo i 
Ὁ: JUS 3 0; {ΠῚ ἢ: 

λέγω (6) τῶι ΜΜ 3286: 199 Lae Alol p90 
Pat ἘΠ Οὐ Rr Τ ΠΟ 
We τό, 11. 10. ΥἹ΄ 

λίαν 2 ΜΒ1, Pal; 1. 4: OG Sk 

λόγος (7) 19 Μ5::24. 138 as ΤῊΝ Pa2 

ἩΠ ΟΡ IRI Το τ το τ A, Ye 

14, iii. 18, III. 10. 

λύω (2) 16 Μ9 LS AS C3 RS; 
[iv. 3]. 


Tans 


μᾳρτυρέω (10) 2M? LA AS Pe eae 
2 045.2) ἵν. ΤΑ) Ὁ Θ᾽: 

Ἢ Ν III. 3, 6, 12 (d25). 

μαρτυρία (7) [13 MS L? Al Pa? R®: I, 
Vv. @ ὧν ),. 10᾽(225),. U1, ΠΣ 

μείζων (11) J2®) ΜῈ ΤΥ ΡΟ τ ΟΡ 
111... 20; ἵν. 4, ..09. 15.’ 

μέλας (2) ΜῈῚἘ5-: 11 ἠπΠ2 11 12: 

μένω. (26) ἣν M5 17 Al pls Pat 56 C2 
Ε΄: I. ἢ. 6, 10, 14, Ys 19, 24 
ica 27 (25), 28, ill. 16,195) τῇ; 
15, 17, 24 (625), iv. a 13, 15, 
16 (42s), II. 2, 9 (42s). 

μετά, c. gen. (9) ya M60+46 [51 436 


Pl Pal’ ΗΠ Cl 588: I. i, 3 (cer), | 


6: 7, ἅν 10. ἵν: 17; WG 2 3.. 
ἡμεταβαίνω (1) ibs Mea yAL = iain 
μή (21) je M‘5+38 7,99 A52 p222 ps2 

aC RU 1. πὸ lG τσ τὸ 

(225), 13, ΤΆ. 18, ἵν. 1... 8: 20] 

Vv. 10, 12; 16) (7), ΕΠ ἢ 9,010 

(625), III. 10, 11. 


ων πω δ πιο νυ και ae 


~ νεανίσκος (2) M4 1. Α΄: 


GREEK WORDS USED IN THE EPISTLES 


pnd€ (2) J? M18 L8 A? Pl® Pa’ HI? C®: 
1 1 τς, ΠΙ|. 13: 

μηδείς (2) M4 13 ΑἹ τ Pa? H! € 
IRA ΤΟ 11 7. IMGs 

"1: (i) BSE ἦι. Mtg 

poses (5).J Me LP? Pal EC” R*: 
τί ᾿ Ὁ: DL, 1112. 15} 1ν 2.20: 

μισθός τ M20+2 15. AY P® Pal ΟΣ 
55 17. 8: 

; ΣῊΝ 1.538}: Τῆι ο. 

μόνον (2) 15 M® L! A® P® Pa? H? (Cee 
Es τ 52: Vie δ᾽ 

μόνος (3) 1᾽ IAT Ae Vee eee TBS (CE 

ἘΠΕῚ iy 2. ν δ᾽ ΠΠ| ale 


ΤΕ τ 35; 


14. 
νικάω (6)}7 L? GC? RE: 
iv. 4, V. Le 

νίκη (OR Ee 
νῦν (5) JM’ Li PINES eB Ja (Cee 
MG Tesh 28; 102; νι 4. MS Ge 


Ie she We Τὰ; 


ξένος (1) M® A? P? Ηϑ ΟἹ : III. 5. 

ὅθεν (1) M4 L! A? HS: I. ii. 18. 

οἰκία (ἘΠ 7 Mi 155 Ata P2 Paes 
10 

ὅλος (2) eee AS Pe Pa? 7G 
IRIE Mh PL 10: 

ὅμοιος (1) ΠΑΡ᾿ ἡ Rate Te 
iii. 

y Sane (6) Nee Ma ΤΡ ΑΒ se ῬΑ ΤΙ 

ΚΙ: 


Il. 


ἘΠ Oyler 2h ven 2; 3, 1, 

7 
ὄνομα (5 ἜΣ M27 1,33 A”? pl Pa2 H4 
ὡ δῖος Τ 172 {Π| 252. ὅν 12, 


ἹΠῚῚ Fans. 
ὁράω Ἢ ΩΝ M” γὺ18᾽. Als p? Pal He C2 
ἘΠ 2: iis 2 6, ἔνε 20 
aay IU anit 
ὅστις (2) A M28+6 [23 A24 p37 Pa7 F10 
CRs alate wie 20; 
ὅταν (1) is ML A? PPE ee ἘΠῚ (ΟἹ 
“1: 


2) 715 M27+10 [21 Al2 p32 Ῥᾳβ FIs 

@ Teh 1:25. 11:0 

οὐδείς (2) a ἌΣ ANS Te Jett! jee 
(5:5 

ὕπο τὴ} Ὁ ΜῸΌΡΝ  Ρ5 ΠΡ R22 ear. 
2. 

OUTen GL mj ΝΜ ΤῊ ΑΛ Ps ΟἹ πες 
100 Bie con 

οὗτος ΚΠ ike M2+12 1,39 A36 pd Fy4 C5 

sal. 22, ὦ: ὁ, 20, 11.7, 0: 


“παράκλητος (1) J4: 


233 


οὗτος--- 
αὕτη (12) J? ΜΈ ἈΠ P9 Pal H? C2 
Ey τι 250 11: 11 220 Υ. 
3, 4, 9, 11 (915), 14, IT. 6 (68:}. 
τοῦτο (6). 
τούτου (1). 
τούτῳ (15). 
ταύτην (3). 
ταῦτα (4). 
τούτοις (1). 
οὕτως (2) J M%+10 Τ 2] A27 ῬΤὶ pal 
ἘΠ GHIIRG Tesi ys ste 
ὀφείλω (4) J? M® L? Al Pl4 HS; 
6, iii. 16, iv. 11, III. 8. 
ὀφθαλμός (3) v7 M247 111 Aé pl FI 
CRLF each ΠΤ ΤΟΣ 


I. ui. 


παιδίον (3) 15 ΜΊΒΉΙΞ [138 pl HS; J, 
11: 13, 18, iii. 


Ξε 
παλαιός (2) Mt3 ΤΟ pe: J, ii, 7 


(dzs). 

πάλιν (1) 15 ΜΠ θα EF AS pee 
RA Us 8; 

παρά, c. gen. (3) J Mt? 19 Als ps 
Bas Coase Ὁ {29} 4 

Yraparyw (2) J? Met? Pl: TI. i, 8, 17. 


πε: 

τὺ a INT Asi ΤΠ 25. 

"παρρησία (4) 1" ΜΙ A® P? et "αὶ I 
ii. eg Lise 2 Ye ὝΨΟΣ 

πᾶς (31) 786 M2-+66 τ yee peo τ 
H® C4l Ro. A Rae 
10. 20; 215 ἐὺς a 29, 11]. a » 
6 (ds), 9, 10, 15 (225). 20, iv. I, 
2, 3, 7, V- I (625), 4, 17, 18, Π. 
ΤῸ ΠῚ 2. 158 

πατήρ Coe a 14 = S Pat 
Heres I aE ey 1.12 
(62s), 14, τς, 16, 22, 23 (635), 24, 
Ligh) Ly ῖν: 14. Te 3 (ὀ25). 4, 9. 

πείθω (1) M+! L4 Al? p20 Pa? Ἠΐ 


Caspar: he 
περί, c. gen. (10) 53 ΔΕῸ L Ass 
ΒΡ ee ede CP a Te td εν 


(t27); 20, 27, lv. 10, δ᾽ 9: ΤΟΣ 16: 

περιπατέω (10). a viene LS A’ pal HI 
CUO: 6 7 π On (G25), 11. 11: 
4, 6 (dz), UL 3,4 

πιστεύω (9) 18: Mutis 13 Α89 p48 pas 
ἘΓ ΟΣ ἼῚΠ 22. ἵν ἢ, 10. ved ns 
5, 10 (¢er), 13. 

πίστις (1) Μ9151,.1 Al p07 pass 1782 


C® Rt: Iov. 4. 
miorés (2) J} M® L? A* Plé Pal? ἘΠ 
Ὁ ΕΞ. 9, IL 


5- 
ἡπλουνάω (3) J? M&+4 L! P® Pa? Ἡ5 C4 
Re, i i, 8, ii. 26, iii. 7. 


234 INDICES 


x πλάνη (1) ΜῈ P4C!: 1. iv. 6. 

πλάνος (2) M! P! Pal: II. 7 (625). 

πλήρης (1) Jt M2t? L? Af: 11. 8. 

πληρόω (2) 1} MI6+3 L2 Al’ p22 pal 
CURA Teas ΠῚ 

πνεῦμα (11) 13 MM+28 136. 472 piss 
ΕΑ 1 GB ἰδ. le aire aiven D 
(is), 2 (525), 3, 6, 13, v. 6 (625), 8. 

ποιέω (15) [194 M%+51 [88 A p73 pas 
ἘΠ CE OTR ak (oy τὸ; ΗΠ ΕΣ 
20, iii. 4, 7 5. Ὁ, 10, 22 vanes 
TO) ΠῚ: τὸ ὉΓΊΟ. 

πολύς (5) 756 M52+55 7.49. 449 p70 pad 
PCRS Ὑ π| 18 ἵν 1 ὙΠ ἡ, 
12, 1Π1|. 123. 

πονηρός (8.1 SMe? Ici AC UP 18 

CER SU rh Sieh is τ το 

εἶν Ve 185. ΤΟΙ ΤΙ τὺ ΠΠΠ το; 

» ποταπός (1) M4112 Cua amon: 

ποῦ (πὴ 1 MAS LF Per CARE 
Ais Te 

τ πες (2)7Ὁ Mi2*7 L> Als pas 

(Op ees ΣΉ τὶ 

ἘΠῚ Δ uM Rese. II. 9. 

προπέμπω (1) A® P4 Pal: III. 6. 

πρός, c. _ ace. (12) 798 wee 1,166. A133 
[AES Tere OL IRC ih. Ὁ, ihe 
1 ΠΡ e2 La ν- 124; 101 (227%) sul 7 1]. 
10; 12 (22s), III. 14 

πρῶτος (1) 18. Mis+0 ΤῸ Al2 p7 pad 

ΕΠ GE TRUS TB si, gop 

Bie Li: I. iv. 12. 

πῶς (2) 13) M4415 [16 AY pS pg? HI 
[RUE Merit 17. she, Pe), 


σάρξ ῷ 7113 M5+4 L2 AS ps Pal HS 
TRG Sir το, hey 2. ΠῚ ἢ, 
σκάνδαλο; (1) M® Li ΒΕ Cl ΕΊΣ: I, 


PANS (5) 78 M?L!; 
τ (625). 
σκότος (τ J) M7+1 L4 A$ PU CS; Τ 1. 6, 
σπέρμα (1) J® ΜῈ L2 A4 pl? Pal HS 
Ris ΤΟ 11. 9. 
σπλάγχνον (1)1.} Αἴ PS: I, iii. 17. 
στόμα (2) 1" ΝΠ L® Al pe pa! ἘΠ 
6 aie: 11 τῇ: 
ὑἱὶ (1) 761 ΜΙΒΈΙΟ [28 Al? pls pas 8 
Ὁ" Β΄: ΠΙ. 3. 
ὑμεῖς (6) 768 M+ ΤΙ 42 ps9 C7, 
11: 3. | 20; 4 A 27 τν- 4. 
σννεργός (τ) pe; 
σφάξω (rt) R8: 1. iii. Ἧι 
σωτήρ (τὴ J} 1. A? P? Pal? CS; 1, iv. 
14. 


HE Th Lp ihe fete) 


ἡτεκνίον (7) J) Pt: 1. pe I, 12, 28, iii. 
η, 18, ἂν. 8 ν! ΖΙ͂- 

τέκνον (9) 15 Mists Li ΑΘ p28 pa? Cs 
Ἂν 1 π|ι 1, 2. το (225); ν- ΣΦ. ΤΠ: 
τας 03, 1a 

Xr éXevos (1) M? Ῥδ ste Che ieaive Le 

yrederdw (4) 15 L? Al Ρὶ H® C?: 
ἢ, ἸΝΟ 12; 17.. Loe 

τηρέω (7) 118 Mét+l ΑΒ ΡῈ Pa? CU RU, 
Li. 21.3514, 5, 1π. 22, ΖΕ 5 118. 

τίθημι (2) 718 ΜΡ5Ὲ: 11 ΑἿϑ pi3’ pas 
tL Co Ree iis το σον 

rls (4) aN M22+71 [13 A55 pl05 pa? Fz 

C2 Ro 1 τὶ, 22; 11a enya ee 

ae e 7155 M2434 ΤῊ Alla pis py2 
Ἠ5 OID re ai ny 7k, Thy. 
20; Vv. 14, τό. Li ro mining: 

τοιοῦτος (1) J? M3+® L? A4 PS! Pal ἨΣ 
(CUO WOT, 8; 

τρεῖς (2) J* Mt LAM Pe Pao 
ΟΝ ν 7. 5. 

iruprdw (1) J} ἘΠ I. ii. 11. 


ὕδωρ (4) 135 M8+5 LS ΑἹ P! H2C4 RB; 
I. v. 6 (¢er), 8. 

υἱός (24) 151 Μϑ8ξ 85 1,75 A22 p39 1734 C3 
ΚΒ: 1.1. 2, 7, Us 22. 21 (Gas mers 
iil. 8, 22, ἵν. Ὁ, 10, ΤΠ ΤΥ 5: 
Ὁ; τὸ (075), 11, 12 (925). 152: Ζὼ 
(42s), II. 3, 9. 

ὑπά ae (1) ΞΕ ΤΟΙ Te τ 


ὑπέρ,ς ὌΣ . gen. (3) 3 ΜΈΣ ΤΣ AEA 
LOG Τ αἰ. το (225), ΠῚ 
ὑπό, ὁ. σεῃ. {1 1 Maso ΤΡ ASE 
ἘΝ ΕΟ Veer VU, Fe. 
ὑπολαμβάνω (1) L? A?: III. 8. 
ὑπομιμνήσκω (1) J' L} Pa? C?: III. το. 


pavepdw (9) 1" M® P!? Pa? H? C? R?: 
I. i. 2 (d25), ii. 19, 28, iii. 2 (42s), 


9. 
pips ay Mé6+15 [4 All pl pal Ἠδ 
ISIS 1 (6): 
hea III. 9. 
φίλος (2) J® M1 L¥ Ae bee III. 15 (d2s). 
prvapéw (1): IIL. 
epcoleess (1) 7 artery 133 Al p? 4 
1 ἦν. 18. 
ΚΣ ay "5 M+! [7 ΑΒ pl3 Pal ΗΙ 
CS; I. iv. 18 (267). 
puddoow (1) J® Mi"? L@ Al ἘΦ ΡΈδ ΩΣ 
Tv. 21: 
φῶς (6) J MS! L7 Al pl? pal Cl 
RR 1. 1. δ, 1 (225) ἢ. 8.0. τὸ; 





1 The use of the nominative only, sing. and plur., has been recorded. 





WORDS USED IN GOSPEL 


xXalpw (4), 15. Mot? ΤΣ A? P* C? R?; 
IDE iy τὸ τὰ, 111..2. 

χαρά (3) 79 MS L8 A4 2! Pal Η4 C3, 

xd pu (OIL eerie Ite  τὸ 

ce (2) J* L8 Al? ps Pale He CH 

3 BE 3 τ τ 
Ae (1): 
χείρ (1) 1 ee 128 A‘ pl8 pat HE 
ΘΕ τ 

Ν πὴ yy πο} 1 ἌΡ᾽ Pea), Tie 

ἘΦ 1 τ 27. 1: 11 

« χρίσμα (1): I. ii. 20, 27 (d25). 

Χριστός (12) [19 M17+8 L}2 A28 ps5 pas? 

ΠΣ ὙΠ (85. Reel oi, 22. ει, Ll 
9: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός I. i. 3, 11.ᾧ1, 
1Π| 2. ἵν. 2. 15. ν. Ὁ; 20, 11: 2; ἡ- 


BUT NOT IN EPISTLES 235 


ἣν εύδομαι (1) ΜΙ A? P4 Pal (' RI: 
TE Oy 


Wrevitensad-a: (1) M3+! L? AlCl 
ἘΞ 0. iv. 1. 


ψεῦδος (2) 71 ΡΆ RS: I. ii. 21, 27. 
ψεύστης (5) J? P} Pa?: I. i. 10, ii. 4, 


22, iv. 20, v. 10: 
Wnragpdaw (1) 1.1 Al H!: 1. 1. 1. 
ψυχή (3) 119 Μ1618 1,14. Al pis ΗἨδ Clo 
RG πὶ τὸ 225)» ΠΠῚ᾿ 2: 


ὥρα (2) Tee M21+12 1,16 A Pp? Rl; Te 
11, 18 (25), 

ὡς (séceet) (3) 113 Μήθ130 139. Αϑι piso 
ba Hee aR ei aly 27 
II. 5. 


E. WORDS USED IN THE GOSPEL BUT NOT IN THE 
EPISTLES OF S. JOHN. 


᾿Αβραάμ (το). 
ἀγαλλιάω (2). 
ἀγγέλλω (2). 
ἄγγελος (4). 
ἁγιάζω (4). 
ἀγοράζω (3). 
ἄγω (12). 
ἀγωνίζομαι (1). 
ἀθετέω (1). 
αἰγιαλός (1). 
Αἰνῶν (1). 
αἰτία (3). 
ἄκανθαι (1). 
ἀκάνθινος (1). 
ἀκοή (1). 
ἀκολουθέω (19). 
ἀλείφω (2). 
ἀλέκτωρ (2). 
ἁλιεύω (τ). 
ἀλλαχόθεν (τ). 
ἅλλομαι (1). 
ἄλλος (34). 
ἀλλότριος (2). 
ἀλόη (1). 
ἁμαρτωλός (4). 
ἀμὴν ἀμήν (25). 
ἀμνός (2). 
ἄμπελος (3). 
ἀνά (1). 
ἀναβαίνω (16). 
ἀναβλέπω (4). 
ἀναγινώσκω (1), 
ἀνάκειμαι (4). 


ἀναπίπτω (5). 
ἀνάστασις (4). 
ἀναστρέφω (1). 
ἀνατρέπω (2). 
ἀναχωρέω (1). 
᾿Ανδρέας (5). 
ἄνεμος (1). 
ἀνέρχομαι (1). 
ἀνήρ (8). 
ἀνθρακία (2). 
ἀνίστημι, trans. (4), intrans. (4), 
ἔΑννας (2). 
ἀνοίγω (11). 

ἀντί (1). 
ἀντιλέγω (I). 
ἀντλέω (4). 
ἄντλημα (1). 
ἄνω (4). 

ἄνωθεν (5). 
ἄξιος (1). 

ἀπάρτι (2). 

ἅπας (1). 
ἀπειθέω (τ). 
ἀπέρχομαι (21). 
ἄπιστος (1). 
ἀποβαίνω (τ). 
ἀποθνήσκω (28). 
ἀποκαλύπτω (1). 
ἀποκόπτω (2). 
ἀποκρίνομαι (78). 
ἀπόκρισις (2). 
ἀποκτείνω (12). 
ἀπολύω (5). 


236 


ἀπορέω (τ). 
ἀπόστολος (1). 
ἀποσυνάγωγος (3). 
ἀπώλεια (1). 
ἄραφος (1). 
ἀριθμός (1). 
᾿Αριμαθαία (1). 
ἀριστάω (2). 
ἀρνίον (1). 
ἁρπάζω (4). 
ἀρτός (24). 
ἀρχιερεύς (21). 
ἀρχιτρίκλινος (3), 
ἄρχω (1). 
ἄρχων (7). 
ἄρωμα (1). 
ἀσθένεια (2). 
ἀσθενέω (9). 
ἀτιμάζω (1)e 
αὐλή (3). 
αὐξάνω (1). 
αὐτόφωρος (1), 


βαθύς (1). 
βαίον (τ). 
βαπτίζω (13). 
βάπτω (1). 
Βαραββᾶς (2). 
βασιλεία (5). 
βασιλεύς (16). 
βασιλικός (2). 
βαστάζω (5) 
[Βηθαβαρά (1)]. 
Βηθανία (4). 
Βηθζαθά (1). 
Βηθλεέμ. (1). 
Βηθσαιδά, (3). 
βῆμα (1). 
βιβλίον (2). 
βιβρώσκω (1). 
βλασφημέω (τ), 
βλασφημία (1). 
βοάω (1). 
βόσκω (2). 
βουλεύομαι (2). 
βοῦς (2). 
βραχίων (1). 
βραχύς (1). 
βροντή (1). 
βρῶμα (1). 
βρῶσις (4). 


Γαββαθά (1). 
γαζοφυλάκιον (I). 
Γαλιλαία (17). 
Γαλιλαῖος (1). 


γάμος (3). 


γε (καίτοιγε) (1). 
γείτων (1). 
γεμίζω (2). 
γενετή (1). 
γέρων (1). 
γεύομαι (2). 
γεωργός (1). 

γῆ (9). 

γηράσκω (1). 
γλωσσόκομον (2), 
γνωρίζω (2). 
γνωστός (2). 
γογγύζω (4). 
γογγυσμός (1). 
Τολγοθά (1). 
γονεῖς (6). 
γράμμα (2). 
γραφή (12). 
γυμνός (1). 

γυνή (18). 


δαιμονίζομαι (1). 
δαιμόνιον (6). 
δακρύω (1). 
δάκτυλος (2). 
Δαυείδ (2). 

δεῖ (το). 
δεικνύω (7). 
δειλιάω (1). 
δεῖπνον (4). 
δεκαπέντε (1), 
δέκατος (1). 
δεξιός (2). 
δέρω (1). 

δεῦρο (1). 
δεῦτε (2). 
δεύτερος (4). 
δέχομαι (1). 
δέω (4). 
δηνάριον (2). 
δήποτε (1). 
διαδίδωμι (1). 
διαζώννυμι (3). 
διακονέω (3). 
διάκονος (3). 
διακόσιοι (2). 
διαμερίζω (1). 
διασκορπίζω (1). 
διασπορά (1). 
διατρίβω (2). 
διδακτός (1). 
διδάσκαλος (7). 
Δίδυμος (3). 
διεγείρω (1). 
διέρχομαι (3). 
δίκτυον (4). 
διψάω (6). 


WORDS USED IN GOSPEL BUT NOT IN EPISTLES 


διώκω (2), 
δοκέω (8). 
δόλος (1). 
δόξα (17). 
δοξάζω (22). 
δουλεύω (1). 
δοῦλος (11). 
δύο (13). 
δώδεκα (6). 
δωρεά (1). 
δωρεάν (1). 


ἕβδομος (1). 
Ἕβραιστί (5). 
ἐγγύς (11). 
ἐγείρω (13). 
ἔθνος (5). 
ἔθος (1). 
εἰ οὐ (2). 
εἴκοσι (1). 
εἰμί (53). 

εἶ (26). 

ὧν (26). 
εἰσάγω (1). 
εἰσέρχομαι (15). 
εἶτα (3). 
ἕκαστος (3). 
ἑκατόν (2). 
ἐκδέχομαι (1). 
ἐκεῖ (22). 
ἐκεῖθεν (2). 
ἐκκέντεω (1). 
ἐκλέγομαι (4). 
ἐκμάσσω (3). 
ἐκνεύω (1). 
ἐκπορεύομαι (2). 
ἐκτείνω (1). 
ἕκτος (2). 
ἐκχέω (1). 
ἐλάσσων (1). 
ἐλαττόω (1). 
ἐλαύνω (1). 
ἐλέγχω (3). 
ἐλεύθερος (2). 
ἐλευθερόω (32). 
ἕλιγμα (1). 
ἑλκύω (5). 
Ἑλλην (3). 
Ἑλληνιστί (1). 
ἐμαυτοῦ (τ6). 
ἐμβαίνω (4). 
ἐμβλέπω (2). 


ἐμβριμάομαι (2). 


ἐμπίμπλημι (1). 
ἐμπόριον (1). 
ἐμφανίζω (2). 
ἐμφυσάω (1). 


ἐνθάδε (2). 
ἐνιαυτός (3). 
ἐνκαίνια (1). 
ἐνταφιάζω (I). 
ἐνταφιασμός (1) 
ἐντέλλομαι (4). 
ἐντεῦθεν (5). 
ἐντυλίσσω (I). 


" 


ξξ (3). 


ἑξετάζω (1). 
ἐξηγέομαι (1). 
ἐξουσία (8). 
ἐξυπνίζω (1). 
ἑορτή (17). 
ἐπαίρω (4). 
ἐπάνω (2). 
ἐπάρατος (1). 
ἐπούριον (5). 
ἐπεί (2). 
ἔπειτα (1). 
ἐπενδύτης (1). 
ἐπερωτάω (2). 
ἐπί, c. gen. (7). 
ὍΣ 6. (27): 
ἐπιβάλλω (2). 
ἐπίκειμαι (2). 
ἐπιλέγομαι (1). 
ἐπιπίπτω (1). 
ἐπιστρέφω (1). 
ἐπιτίθημι (3). 
ἑπιτρέπω (1). 
ἐπιχρίω (2). 
ἐπουράνιος (1). 
ἐραυνάω (2). 
ἔρημος (5). 
ἑρμηνεύω (3) 
ἐρῶ (6). 
ἐσθίω (15), 
ἔσω (1). 
ἕτερος (I). 
ἔτι (8). 
ἑτοιμάζω (2). 
ἕτοιμος (1). 
ἔτος (3). 
εὐθύνω (τ). 
εὐθύς (3). 
εὐλογέω (I). 
εὐχαριστέω (3). 
᾿Εφραίμ (1). 
ἐχθές (1). 
ἕως, con}. (5). 


Ζεβεδαῖος (1). 
ζῆλος (1). 
ἑητέω (34). 


237 


238 


ζήτησις (1). 
ζώννυμι (2). 
ζωοποιέω (3). 


Ἠλείας (2). 
ἡλικία (2). 
Hos (2). 
ἤπερ (1). 
*Hoalas (4). 


θάλασσα (9). 
θαρσέω (1). 
θαυμαστός (τ). 
θεοσεβής (1). 
θεραπεύω (1). 
θερίζω (4). 
θερισμός (2). 
θερμαίνομαι (3). 
θήκη (1). 
θλίψις (2). 
θνήσκω (2). 
θρέμμα (1). 
θρηνέω (1). 
θρίξ (2). 
θυγάτηρ (1). 
θύρα (7). 
θυρωρός (3). 
θύω (1). 
Θωμᾶς (7). 


᾿Ιακώβ (3). 
ἰάομαι (3). 

ἴδε (15). 

ἔδιος (1 5), 

ἰδού (4) 

ἱερεύς (1). 

ἱερόν (10). 
“Ἱεροσόλυμα (12). 


ἱΙεροσολυμεῖται (1). 


ἱμάς (1). 
ἱμάτιον (6). 
ἱματισμός (1). 
᾿Ιορδάνης (3). 
*Tovdala (6). 
᾿Ιουδαῖος (71). 


Ἰούδας (Iscariot) (8). 


*Tovdas (1). 
Ἰσκαριώτης (6). 
ἴσος (1). 
Ἰσραήλ (4). 
᾿Ισραηλείτης (1). 
ἵστημι (18). 
ἰσχύω (1). 

ἰχθύς (3). 


*Iwdvys (Baptista) (18). 


᾽Τωάνης (4). 


᾿Ιωσήφ (filius Israel) (1), 


INDICES 


᾿Ιωσήφ (Mariae maritus) (2), 


Ἰωσήφ (1). 


κἀγώ (31). 
καθαίρω (1), 
καθαρισμός (2), 
καθαρός (4). 
καθέζομαι (4). 
κάθημαι (4). 
καθίζω (2), 
Καιάφας (5). 
καιρός (4). 
Καῖσαρ (3). 
καίτοιγε (I), 
καίω (2). 

κἀκεῖ (1). 
κἀκεῖνος (6). 
κακῶς (1), 
καλός (7). 

κἄν (4). 

Κανά (4). 
καρπός (10). 
κατά, c. gen. (1). 
καταβαίνω (18), 
καταβολή (1). 
κατάγνυμι (3). 
κατάκειμαι (2). 
καταλαμβάνω (3). 
κατεσθίω (1). 
κατηγορέω (2). 
κατηγορία (1). 
κάτω (1). 
Καφαρναούμ (5). 
Κέδρος (1). 
κειρία (1). 
κέρμα (1). 
κερματιστής (1). 
κεφαλή (5). 
κῆπος (4). 
κηπουρός (1). 
Κηφᾶς (1). 
κίνησις (1). 
κλαίω (8). 
κλάσμα (2). 
κλέπτης (4). 
κλέπτω (1). 
κλῆμα (4). 
κλῆρος (1). 
κλίνω (1). 
Κλωπᾶς (1). 
κοιλία (2). 
κοιμάομαι (2). 
κοίμησις (1). 
κόκκος (1). 
κολλυβιστής (I). 
κόλπος (2). 
κολυμβήθρα (4). 


WORDS USED IN GOSPEL BUT NOT IN EPISTLES 


κομψότερον (1), 
κοπιάω (3). 
κόπος (1). 
κόφινος (τ). 
κράβαττος (4). 
κράζω (4). 
κρανίον (1). 
κρατέω (1). 
κραυγάζω (6). 
κρίθινος (2). 
κρίμα (1). 
κρίνω (19). 
κρυπτός (3). 
κρύπτω (1). 
κυκλεύω (1). 
κυκλόω (τ). 
κύριος (52). 
κώμη (3). 


λαγχάνω (1). 
Λάζαρος (11). 
λάθρᾳ (1). 
λαλιά (2). 
λαμπάς (1). 
λαός (2). 
λατρεία (1). 
λέντιον (2). 
λευείτης (1). 
λευκός (2). 
λῃστής (3). 
λιθάζω (4). 
λίθινος (1). 
λίθος (6). 
λιθόστρωτος (1). 
λίτρα (2). 
λογίζομαι (1), 
λόγχη (1). 
λοιδορέω (1). 
λούω (1). 
λύκος (2). 
λυπέω (2). 
λύπη (4). 
λύχνος (1). 


Μαγδαληνὴ (3). 

μαθητής (78). 

μαίνομαι (1). 

μακάριος (2). 

μακράν (1). 

μᾶλλον (4). 

Μάλχος (1). 

μανθάνω (2). 

μάννα (2). 

Μάρθα (9). 

Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή (5). 
Μαριάμ, Μαρία (Laz. soror) (9). 
μαστιγόω (1). 


μάχαιρα (2). 
μάχομαι (1). 
μέγας (5). 
μεθερμηνεύομαι (2). 
μεθύω (1). 

μέλει (2). 

μέλλω (12). 

μέν (8). 

μέντοι (5). 
μέρος (3). 

μέσος (5). 
μεσόω (1). 
Μεσσίας (2). 
μεστός (3). 
μετά, c. acc. (16). 
μεταξύ (1). 
μέτρον (1). 
μετρητής (1). 
(μή), οὐ μή (17). 
μηκέτι (1). 
μήποτε (1). 
μήτηρ (11). 
μήτι (3). 

μιαίνω (1). 
μίγμα (1). 
μικρόν (9). 
μικρός (2). 
μιμνήσκομαι (3). 
μισθωτός (1). 
μνημεῖον (14). 
μνημονεύω (3). 
μύρον (4). 
Μωυσῆς (11). 


Ναζαρέτ (2). 
Ναζωραῖος (5). 
Ναθαναήλ (6). 
ναί (3). 

ναός (3). 
νάρδος (1). 
νεκρός (8). 
νέος (1). 

νεύω (1). 
Νικόδημος (5), 
νιπτήρ (1). 
νίπτω (13). 
νοέω (1). 

νομή (1). 
νόμος (13). 
νόσημα (1). 
νύμφη (1). 
νυμφιός (3). 
νύξ (6). 


νύσσω (1). 


ξηραίνω (1). 
ξηρός (1). 


239 


240 


ὁδηγέω (1). 
ὁδός (4). 
ὄξω (1). 
ὀθόνιον (4). 
οἰκοδομέω (1). 
οἶκος (3). 
οἶμαι (1). 
οἶνος (6). 
ὀκτώ (2). 
ὁμοίως (3). 
ὁμοῦ (3). 
ὅμως (1). 
ὀνάριον (I). 
ὄνος (1). 
ὄξος (3). 
ὀπίσω (7). 
ὅπλον (1). 
ὅπου (30). 
ὅπως (1). 
ὀργή (1). 
ὅρος (4). 
ὀρφανός {1 
ὅσος (10). 
ὀστέον (1). 
ὅτε (21). 

οὔ (3). 
οὐδέποτε (1). 
οὐδέπω (3). 
οὐκέτι (12). 
οὐκοῦν (1). 
οὐρανός (20). 
οὗτοι (5). 
οὐχί (7). 
ὄφις (1). 
ὄχλος (20). 
ὀψάριον (5). 
ὀψία (2). 
ὄψις (2). 


παιδάριον (I), 
παιδίσκη (1). 

παῖς (τ). 

παίω (I). 

πάντοτε (7). 
παρά, ς. dat. (9). 
παραγίνομαι (2). 
παραδίδωμι (15). 
παρακύπτω (1). 
παραλαμβάνω (3). 
παραμυθέομαι (2). 
παρασκευή (3). 
πάρειμι (2). 
παρίστημι (2). 
παροιμία (4). 
πάσχα (το). 
πατρίς (1). 
Πειλᾶτος (20). 


INDICES 


πεινάω (1). 
πειράζω (2). 
πέμπω (32). 
πενθερός (1). 
πεντακισχίλιοι (1). 
πέντε (5). 
πεντήκοντα (2). 
πέραν (8). 
περί; c. acc. (I). 
περιβάλλω (1). 
περιδέομαι (1). 
περιίστημι (1). 
περισσεύω (2). 
περισσός (1). 
περιστερά (3). 
περιτέμνω (1). 
περιτίθημι (1). 
περιτομή (2). 
Πέτρος (34). 
πηγή (3). 
πηλός (5). 
πῆχυς (I). 
πιάζω (8). 
πίνῳ (11). 
πιπράσκωῳ (I). 
πίπτω (3). 
πιστικός (1). 
πλείων (5). 
πλέκω (I). 
πλευρά (4). 
πλῆθος (2). 
πλήρωμα (I). 
πλησίον (1). 
πλοιάριον (4), 
πλοῖον (8). 
πνέω (2). 
πόθεν (13). 
ποιμαίνω (1), 
ποιμήν (6). 
ποίμνη (1). 
ποῖος (4). 
πόλις (8). 
πολλάκις (I). 
πολύτιμος (1). 
πορεύομαι (17). 
πορνεία (1). 
πορφύρεος (2). 
πόσις (1). 
ποταμός (1). 
ποτέ (1). 

πότε (2). 
πότερον (1). 
ποτήριον (1). 
πούς (14). 
πραιτώριον (4). 
πράσσω (2). 
πρίν (3). 


WORDS USED IN GOSPEL BUT NOT IN EPISTLES 


πρό (9). 
προβατικός (1). 
προβάτιον (2). 
πρόβατον (19). 
πρός, c. dat. (3). 
προσαιτέω (1). 
προσαίτης (1). 
προσέρχομαι (1). 
προσκόπτω (2). 
προσκυνέω (10). 
προσκυνητής (1). 
προσφάγιον (1). 
πρότερος (3). 
προτρέχω (1). 
πρόφασις (1). 
προφητεύω (1). 
προφήτης (14). 
πρωί (2). 

πρωία (1). 
πρῶτον (8). 
πτέρνα (1). 
πτύσμα (1). 
πτύω (1). 
πτωχός (Δ). 
πυνθάνομαι (1), 
πῦρ (1). 

πυρετός (1). 
πωλέω (2). 
πῶλος (1). 
πωρόῳ (1). 


ῥαββεί (8). 
ῥαββουνεί (1). 
ῥάπισμα (2). 
ῥέω (1). 

ῥῆμα (12), 
Ῥωμαῖος (1). 
“Ῥωμαϊστί (1). 


σάββατον (14). 
Σαλείμ (1). 
Σαμαρείτης (4). 
Σαμαρεῖτις (2). 
Σαμαρία (3). 
Σατανᾶς (1). 
σεαυτοῦ (9). 
σημαίνω (3). 
σημεῖον (17). 
Σιλωάμ (1). 
Σίμων (Ilérpos) (22). 
Σίμων (3). 
σῖτος (1). 

Σιών (1). 
σκανδαλίζω (2). 
σκέλος (3). 
σκεῦος (1). 


16 


oKnvornyla (1). 
σκηνόω (1). 
σκληρός (1). 
σκορπίζω (2). 
σμύρνα (1). 
Σολομών (1). 
σός (6). 
σουδάριον (2). 
σπεῖρα (2). 
σπείρω (2). 
σπήλαιον (1). 
σπόγγος (1). 
στάδιος (2). 
σταυρός (4). 
σταυρόω (10). 
στέφανος (2). 
στῆθος (2). 
στήκω (2). 
στοά (2). 
στρατιώτης (6), 
στρέφω (4). 
συγγενής (1). 
συκῆ (2). 
συλλαμβάνω (1), 
συμφέρω (3). 
σύν (3). 
συνάγω (7). 
συναγωγή (1). 
συνέδριον (1). 
συνεισέρχομαι (2), 
συνέρχομαι (2). 
συνήθεια (1). 
συνμαθητής (1). 
συνσταυρόω (I). 
συντελέω (1). 
συντίθεμαι (1). 
συντρίβω (1). 
συνχράομαι (1). 
σύρω (1). 
Συχάρ (1). 
σφραγίζω (2). 
σχίζω (2). 
σχίσμα (3). 
σχοινίον (1), 
σώζω (6). 

σῶμα (6). 
σωτηρία (I). 


ταράσσω (7). 
ταραχή (1). 
τάχειον (2). 
ταχέως (1). 
ταχύ (1). 

τε (3). 
τελευτάω (I). 
τελευτή (2). 
τέλος (1). 


241 


» 


“= 


τέρας (1). 
τέσσαρες (2). 
τεσσεράκοντα (1). 
τεταρταῖος (1). 
τετράμηνος (1). 
Τιβεριάς (3). 
τίκτω (1). 
τιμάω (6). 
τιμή (1). 
τίτλος (2). 
τολμάω (I). 
τόπος (17). 
τοσοῦτος (4). 
τότε (10). 
τράπεζα (1). 
τρέχω (2). 
τριάκοντα (3). 
τριακόσιοι (I). 
τρίς (1). 
τρίτον (4). 
τρίτος (1). 
τροφή (1). 
τρώγω (5). 
τύπος (1). 
τυφλός (16). 


ὑγιής (7). 

ὑδρία (3). 
ὑμέτερος (3). 
ὑπαντάω (4). 
ὑπάντησις (1). 
ὑπέρ, c. acc. (1). 
ὑπηρέτης (9). 
ὕπνος (1). 

ὑπό, c. acc. (1). 
ὑπόδειγμα (1). 
ὑπόδημα (1). 
ὑποκάτω (1). 
ὕσσωπος (1). 
ὑστερέω (1). 
ὕστερον (1). 
ὑφαντός (I). 
ὑψόω (5). 


INDICES 


φανερῶς (τ). 
φανός (1). 
Φαρισαῖος (20), 
φαῦλος (2). 
φεύγω (3). 
φημί (4). 
φιλέω (13). 
Φίλιππος (12). 
φοῖνιξ (1). 
φραγέλλιον (1). 
φρέαρ (2). 
φυλακή (1). 
φωνέω (13). 
φωνή (15). 
φωτίζω [1}. 


χαμαί (2). 
χείμαρρος (1). 
χειμών (1). 
χείρων (1). 
χιλιάρχος (I). 
χιτών (2). 
χολάω (1). 
χορτάζω (1)» 
χόρτος (1). 
χρόνος (4). 
χωλός (1). 
χώρα (3). 
χωρέω (3). 
χωρίον (1). 
χωρίς (3). 


ψύχος (1). 
ψωμίον (4). 


ὧδε (5). 

ὡς, conj. (21). 
ὡσαννά (1). 
ὥσπερ (2). 
ὥστε (1). 
ὠτάριον (1). 
ὠτίον (1). 


ὠφελέω (2). 











DATE DUE 





a RN Sea yo Ki 
SEAR Σ ΨῈ = τ 






μῦς ἡ δ᾽ ΒΒ 
if ee fe 


PRINTEDINU.S.A. 

















“͵ 


πὶ ie ἂψ ᾿ 





2 


~ Δι 


εὖ αὶ ἐὰ Κἡἀὰ δὴ ΔΑ | 


= PET STE TI 





ΣῈ 


132° 


2927 








Pare Dt er a 
Parr wee ἃ 





wee 


BS2805 .B872 
A critical and exegetical commentary on 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


VIA 


1 1012 00067 0994 











